HC warns of ‘serious view’ against Chandigarh MC chief for reinstating employee

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the benefit of doubt extended by a criminal court cannot, by itself, entitle a temporary or casual employee to reinstatement in service. Justice Jagmohan Bansal warned that “a serious view shall be taken against the Commissioner” if any such employee – despite being acquitted merely on technical grounds – was reinstated in future.

The word of caution came in a case where the petitioner-worker challenged March 18, 2019 order of the UT Municipal Corporation Commissioner rejecting his request for re-engagement. Justice Bansal asserted the perusal of record made it evident that petitioner was not a regular/permanent employee. Rather, he was a temporary/casual employee.

As per respondent UT, he stopped working after February 25, 1992, but was reinstated with back wages and continuity of service by the Labour Court in October 1997. “Despite the fact, he was found involved in charging parking fee without issuing slips or issuing the ones, which were not of the Municipal Corporation,” the Bench was told. It was added that the trial court acquitted him extending benefit of doubt as few witnesses turned hostile. His counsel argued the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that UT had not issued any rule/notification regarding re-employment of daily wager after his/her acquittal in a criminal case. The statement was factually incorrect because three others, facing criminal proceedings, had been reinstated.

The counsel argued that discrimination was writ large. The respondent wrongly rejected the petitioner’s claim even though he had been honourably acquitted and there was no ground to deny him the post.

“Mere fact that petitioner has been acquitted by trial court extending benefit of doubt, does not entitle him to reinstatement, especially when he was not a permanent employee…It is also settled law that employer is not bound to reinstate despite acquittal of an employee by trial court. It is the employer who has to decide taking into account act and conduct of the employee,” Justice Bansal ruled.

The Bench also cautioned the authorities against inconsistent or arbitrary reinstatement practices in such cases. “Before parting with the judgment, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to consider observations made hereinabove, while considering claim of any other employee. If in future it is found that any employee despite being acquitted on technical grounds has been reinstated, a serious view shall be taken against the Commissioner,” the judgment concluded.