Accusations not enough for termination from service: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, April 10

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that mere involvement in a criminal case or framing of charges does not constitute grounds for terminating the service of a duly selected and appointed employee.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also made it clear that imputations to an employee’s character, which were subject to trial in a court of law, would not cast an irrefutable doubt so as to render him/her ineligible for service.

“If that be so, the very purpose of putting someone on trial gets defeated. The accusation in itself cannot be suffice to pronounce the accused guilty to face the consequences. It is only when the accusations/charges are proved and the employee stands convicted of an offence, that he/she is disqualified from holding the post or being a part of service, not prior thereto,” Justice Dahiya ruled.

The ruling came in a case where an employee’s services were terminated before the accusations could be established. The matter was placed before the Bench after the employee filed a petition seeking the quashing of order terminating his services.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case alleging offences related to outraging of modesty registered in September 2019 under Section 354(I) (II), 354D, 506, 509 and Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner during the petition’s pendency was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated December 1, 2023, after the conclusion of the trial in the criminal case.

Justice Dahiya asserted: “The order of termination was passed on the premise that the alleged offences involved moral turpitude. Undisputedly, at the time of termination from service, the petitioner was only accused of the said offences, as none of the charges had been proved, nor was he convicted for any offence…. The petitioner’s service has been terminated before the accusations could be proved, which renders the impugned order unsustainable in law”.

Justice Dahiya also observed one of the arguments was that the petitioner had concealed vital information regarding his involvement in the criminal case while submitting the attestation form. But the contention was not sustainable. A column in the form merely required a response to the question: Have you ever been convicted by a court of any offence?

The petitioner wrote ‘no’ since he had not been convicted at that time and also thereafter as the trial against him ended in an acquittal. There was no requirement for him to disclose involvement in any criminal case. As such, he could not be accused of non-disclosure of any information.

Setting aside the impugned termination order, the Bench ruled that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits, including salary for the period he was prevented from working due to illegal termination. The respondents were also directed to allow the petitioner to join the service forthwith “and release due benefits within four weeks”.