it2025_00897 — Once an employee is acquitted in the criminal case and his conviction has been set aside which led to his dismissal from service, he is entitled to reinstatement. Major penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed without holding any inquiry and therefore the impugned order denying him pensionary benefits cannot be sustained

Once an employee is acquitted in the criminal case and his conviction has been set aside which led to his dismissal from service, he is entitled to reinstatement. Major penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed without holding any inquiry and therefore the impugned order denying him pensionary benefits cannot be sustained — The chunk pertains to a legal case in which an employee, who was dismissed due to conviction in a criminal case but later acquitted by the Appellate Court, is entitled to reinstatement. The employer ... — Facts: Facts: While working as Lineman with effect from 6-5-1979, the Applicant, was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 302 of IPC on 23-6-2022 and the Applicant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 19-7-2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Maharashtra at Nagpur and the punishment was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court on 20-9-2017. In view of his acquittal by the Hon'ble High Court, the Applicant represented to the authorities on 27-10-2017 seeking grant of full pay and allowances from the date of suspension, till his retirement on 30-11-2016. Since the Applicant was not favoured with a reply by the Respondents, he filed O.A. No. 2219 of 2019 on 5-11-2019 seeking necessary directions. The said OA was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal directing the Respondents to dispose of his representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 6 weeks. However, the Respondents rejected his request on 27-4-2020 as not being entitled to any relief as claimed by him. Hence the present OA. The Applicant contended that no notice as contemplated under Rule 19(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him and that he had no knowledge of his dismissal. The Applicant further contended that he has been terminated without conducting any inquiry. The Respondents contended that after his conviction by the Court, as he was in jail, notice was served on him through the jail authorities, but the Applicant refused to accept the notice. The Respondents further contended that his acquittal was based upon benefit of doubt and it was not an honourable acquittal. As he was dismissed from service, he was not eligible for pension and retiral benefits and arrears and relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India and another v. Bihari Lal Sidhana [(1997) 4 SCC 385]. The Respondents further contended that here was delay in filing the appeal and that he is not eligible for any relief. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others [(2006) SCC Online All 1492], it has been held that once an employee is acquitted in the criminal case, and his conviction has been set aside which led to his dismissal from service, he is entitled to reinstatement. Moreover, when an employee convicted by a Criminal Court is dismissed from service by invoking the powers under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and he is acquitted by the Appellate Court, two courses are open for the employer:

(i) to prefer further remedy against conviction in higher Court as provided under law

(ii) to initiate departmental inquiry against the Applicant on the charges levelled in criminal case. If the employer does not opt for any of these courses, the delinquent employee is entitled to be reinstated.