Harnek Singh Chahal vs State & Anr on 5 March, 2018

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6451 / 2016
Harnek Singh Chahal s/o Shri Jeet Singh, b/c Jatsikh, aged 63
years, r/o Chak 14 Z, P.O. 12 Z, Via Mirzewala, Tehsil District Sri


1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Kabir Marg, Bani
Park, Jaipur through its Managing Director.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.D.Sharma, Dy.Govt.Counsel

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“a. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
order dated 27.01.1998 (Annex.5) may kindly be
quashed and set aside and the petitioner be
reinstated in service from 12.06.1986 with all the due
consequential benefits such as salary, allowances,
promotion, GPF and gratuity.

b. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly
be passed in favour of the petitioner.

c. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to
the petitioner.”

(2 of 6)

2. The petitioner joined the services on the post of

Assistant Seed Inspector with the Rajasthan State Seed

Corporation Limited in pursuance of the appointment order dated


3. On 02.05.1986, an FIR was lodged against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 IPC at

Police Station, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was suspended by the

respondents on 12.06.1986 while invoking Rule 13 of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules,

1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’), as adopted by the


5. The petitioner was convicted by the competent criminal

court vide order dated 27.01.1990 for the offences under Sections

306 and 498A IPC. Consequent upon such conviction, the

petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 27.01.1998

passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, while

invoking the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958.

6. The petitioner preferred S.B.Criminal Appeal

No.50/1990 before this Hon’ble Court, wherein vide order dated

07.11.2013, the conviction of the petitioner, as aforementioned,

was set aside; however, prior thereto, the petitioner had attained

the age of superannuation on 09.08.2013.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come out with a

case that the petitioner stood dismissed from service, while

invoking the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958

by the respondents, only on the ground of his conviction vide
(3 of 6)

aforementioned order dated 27.01.1990,.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that once this

Hon’ble Court had acquitted the petitioner from the charge so

levelled, then the baseline of the dismissal order goes away, and

hence, the petitioner ought to have been granted all the

consequential benefits.

9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by this Hon’ble

Court in Ganesh Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors. reported

in 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 3, relevant portion of which reads as


“6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that it is an obligatory duty of the respondents that
after acquittal from the charges against an employee
to grant all retiral benefits including service benefits.
But in this case, petitioner was placed under
suspension in the year 1987 and he remained
suspended till his retirement w.e.f 31.12.1996 and
thereafter, repeatedly, petitioner made request to the
respondents to release his retiral benefits as well as
service benefits but those benefits are not paid to the
petitioner till today.

7. In this writ petition while filing reply by the
State, it is pointed out that although petitioner was
acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the
offence under
Section 5(1) (d)(ii) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 but against the said judgment
dated 07.03.98 passed in Case No. 03/97, an appeal
was preferred by the State which is pending in this
Court, therefore, as per Rule 7(4) of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, petitioner is not
(4 of 6)

entitled for service benefits so also retiral benefits
when the case is pending against the petitioner.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I
am of the opinion that once an employee is acquitted
from the criminal charges levelled against him after
due trial then, obviously he is required to be treated
acquitted from the charges until and unless he is again
convicted by the appellate court.

9. Only on the basis of pendency of criminal
appeal against the judgment of acquittal the
respondents cannot deny the service benefits as well
as retiral benefits. As per rules, as and when trial
concludes, the respondents are under an obligation to
grant retiral benefits and they cannot retain the retiral
benefits and service benefits absolutely on the ground
that appeal is against the judgment and appeal is

10. In view of above, the respondents are
directed to release all the retiral benefits and services
benefits because he was placed under suspension in
the year 1997 and remained under suspension till his
retirement and in between that period, petitioner was
getting only subsistence allowance whereas, after
acquittal, he became entitled to get all other services

11. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to complete the process for
fixation and grant of all service benefits and retiral
benefits within a period of six months. It is also made
it clear that petitioner’s case for interest after his
acquittal may also be considered in accordance with
Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1996.”

(5 of 6)

9. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position

to refute the facts as submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents however,

submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable,

and therefore, the invocation of the power conferred by Rule 19(1)

of the Rules of 1958 by the respondents was justified.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted

that the respondents were justified in invoking the power under

Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958, as the petitioner stood convicted

vide order dated 27.01.1990 by the competent court, and thus,

there is no question of granting him any benefit.

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well

as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law

cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the

petitioner was appointed on 12.11.1981. He thereafter, in the year

1986, faced the FIR under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. The

petitioner was suspended on 12.06.1986. The conviction of the

petitioner on 27.01.1990, led to his termination from the services

on 27.01.1998 by the respondents while invoking Rule 19(1) of

the Rules of 1958. The said conviction however, could not be

sustained in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.50/1990, and this Hon’ble

Court, vide order dated 07.11.2013, acquitted the petitioner from

the criminal charges.

13. This Court also finds that the precedent law cited by

learned counsel for the petitioner is also governing the field, and

once such procedure under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958 has

been invoked and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner only
(6 of 6)

on the ground of his conduct, which led to his conviction on a

criminal charge, then, in the circumstances, when the charge itself

has been done away with by this Hon’ble Court in the

aforementioned criminal appeal, the impugned order cannot be


14. In view of the above, the present writ petition is

allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.1998 is quashed and

set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits notionally

till the date of his superannuation. Thus, the respondents shall

compute all the retiral benefits of the petitioner, treating him to be

in actual service till the date of his actual superannuation.

However, the benefits from termination till the date of

superannuation shall be notional in nature. The petitioner shall be

required to cooperate with such computation, and if any amount is

required to be paid by the petitioner to seek the ultimate retiral

benefits, then the same shall be immediately paid by the

petitioner. Such computation and necessary benefits shall be

rendered to the petitioner within a period of three months from

today. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as all other

similarly situated employees for grant of retiral benefits.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *