The Supreme Courtroom has held {that a} public employer can’t discharge an worker merely as a result of a prison case is pending in opposition to him, significantly when the worker has not been allowed to defend himself.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the discharge of a police constable was unlawful as a result of, on the time of his removing, there was no conviction in opposition to him and the order was based mostly solely on the pendency of the prison case.
“Appellant was discharged from service not due to his conviction on a prison cost however merely on the bottom of pendency of the prison case. He was not given a possibility of elevating his defence. We’ve got not been proven any regulation which authorises a public employer to both dismiss or take away an worker serving the police for extra 12 than a decade solely on the bottom of pendency of a prison case. The act of termination of service, within the circumstances, can’t be justified.”, the Courtroom stated.
The Courtroom, nonetheless, declined to order reinstatement after greater than twenty years and, exercising its powers underneath Article 142 of the Structure, directed the State to pay the appellant ₹5 lakh as compensation.
Background
The appellant had initially been appointed as a Particular Police Officer within the Punjab Police in 1991 and was subsequently chosen for appointment as a Constable within the First Indian Reserve Battalion, Patiala.
Though he was chosen for the put up in August 2002, he was denied becoming a member of when he reported for responsibility on August 30, 2002.
The rationale cited was the pendency of an FIR registered in opposition to him underneath Sections 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
On January 14, 2003, the appellant was discharged from service whereas the prison case was nonetheless pending; nonetheless, no conviction order was recorded in opposition to him.
Later, the appellate court docket subsequently maintained his conviction underneath Part 324 IPC however put aside the conviction underneath Part 326 IPC and launched him on probation underneath the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The appellate court docket had additionally noticed that the conviction wouldn’t have an effect on his service profession. Aggrieved by the Respondent’s choice refusing to reinstate him to the service, the Appellant filed an attraction earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
Whereas agreeing with the Appellant’s rivalry that the discharge was mistaken on the time when solely a prison case was pending in opposition to him, the Courtroom disagreed with the Appellant’s rivalry concerning the reinstatement to the companies owing to his launch underneath the probation, saying that probation does not erase the conviction, which does not bar the removing from service solely based mostly on the conviction.
“…mere launch of a convict on probation underneath the 1958 Act doesn’t wash away the conviction and though profit is given underneath the 1958 Act, the convicted particular person might be faraway from service solely based mostly on his conviction.”, the Courtroom stated.
Mere launch on probation doesn’t bar dismissal from service based mostly on worker’s conduct in crime
“Launch on probation doesn’t obliterate the conviction. Main object of releasing a convict on probation is his reformation and rehabilitation as a helpful and self-reliant member of society with out subjecting him to the deleterious results of jail life. Nonetheless, on the bottom of conduct which has led to his conviction on a prison cost however launch on probation, the holder of a civil put up underneath the State might be proceeded in opposition to in view of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 and be dismissed or faraway from service or lowered in rank with none enquiry.”, the Courtroom stated.
Nonetheless, noting that because the Appellant was not convicted on the time of his discharge, subsequently, discovering the discharge order to be unlawful, the Courtroom, as a substitute of reinstating the Appellant, has invoked its inherent jurisdiction underneath Article 142 of the Structure, directing the respondents to pay ₹5,00,000 to the appellant inside three months.
The attraction was disposed of within the aforesaid phrases.
Trigger Title: SPO/CONSTABLE IRB SATPAL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 845
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.
