'No Mother Would Hurt Her Child': Orissa High Court Orders 75% Back Wages To Woman Dismissed For Allegedly Throwing Her Baby Into Canal

The Orissa High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) reinstating a female government employee who was dismissed from service for allegedly throwing her baby into a canal causing her death. The Court further modified the Tribunal's order asking the employer to pay 75% of the back wages upon her reinstatement. In the absence of any evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged crime, coupled with the fact that she was acquitted by a competent Criminal Court, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked –“It is a Jewish proverb that “God could not be everywhere and therefore, he made mothers”. There is absolutely no material to infer, let alone demonstrate that the Petitioner intended to commit suicide and as a step in aid she had thrown her baby into the flowing waters of the canal. No mother would hurt her child. Adi Shankaracharya in Devi Aparadha Kshamapana Stotram says “Kuputro Jayet Kwachidapi Kumata Na Bhavati”, a bad son may be born somewhere, but a bad mother never is, literally meaning.”The petitioner, who was working with the Aviation Research Centre, was removed from her service by the respondent authorities with effect from 28.08.2017 on the allegation that she attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a canal after throwing her one-year-old child into the same. Though a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, nothing adverse was found against her. Despite such finding, she was terminated from service.Further, a criminal case was instituted under Section 302 (murder) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. However, she was acquitted of such charges as the prosecution was unable to prove that she jumped with the baby with an intention to commit suicide or to kill the child. The petitioner, on the basis of favourable findings recorded both in the disciplinary inquiry as well as in the criminal case, challenged her dismissal order before the CAT. The tribunal overturned her termination and awarded 50% of the back wages as she was kept away from service for no fault attributable to her. She was aggrieved by the award of only 50% of the back wages and therefore, filed this writ petition seeking 100% of the back wages.During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner contended that she was honourably acquitted by the criminal court. Justice Shripad, who headed the Bench, asked the counsel whether any of the conditions enumerated in the case of PV Rudrappa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 59 has been met in this case so as to make the acquittal an honourable one. The counsel pointed out the relevant findings of the criminal court which found no direct evidence suggesting mens rea on the part of the petitioner, which rather found the plea of the petitioner, that she jumped into the canal to save the child, probable.The Court was also of the view that a mother is not believed to hurt her child and the same can be accepted as a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.“There are decisions, Courts in civilized jurisdictions which hold that mothers have tremendous instinct to save their children, come what may. Such a presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regard being had to the timeline of the case. If that be so, it becomes un understandable as to how full back wages could have been denied by awarding only half.”It also nixed the argument on behalf of the respondents that the principle “no work no pay” finds its way to this case. The Bench was of the view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer financially for no fault attributable to her.“Petitioner has lost her baby in the conspiracy of circumstances. Putra shokam nirantaram say the Smritikaaras. The pung of children's death is grievous and eternal. This aspect too is a relevant consideration. Keeping all the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that 75% of the back wages instead of 50% could have been awarded to the Petitioner, by balancing the competing equities.”Accordingly, the CAT order was modified by directing payment of 75% of back wages within a period of eight (8) weeks failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem for the first month and 2% for the subsequent default period, which shall be recoverable from the erring officials.Case Title: Subhasree Pattanaik v. Union of India & Anr.Case No: W.P.(C) No. 20364 of 2021Date of Judgment: January 15, 2026Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Sidheswar Mallik, P.C. Das, M. Mallik & S. Mallick, AdvocatesCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Dy. Solicitor General India along with Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Central Government CounselCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 14Click Here To Read/Download Order

'No Mother Would Hurt Her Child': Orissa High Court Orders 75% Back Wages To Woman Dismissed For Allegedly Throwing Her Baby Into Canal

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags