In a significant ruling that reinforces the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' in service matters, the Allahabad High Court has held that mere incarceration in a criminal case, without a conviction, cannot be a valid ground for removing a government employee from service. The court recently upheld an order setting aside the dismissal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) head constable who was sacked for his alleged involvement in a murder case.
Court's Key Observations and Rationale
A division bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti delivered the judgment, emphasizing the legal distinction between arrest and guilt. The bench observed that while pending trial in a serious case could be grounds for suspending an employee, it does not automatically warrant termination. "Merely because a person has been incarcerated in connection with an offence of murder or conspiracy to murder, cannot be a ground for removal though it may be a ground for suspending him i.e. if the trial is pending," the court stated unequivocally.
The court found that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of a chargesheet against the constable were baseless, as they relied solely on the fact of his incarceration. The judges noted that at the time of his dismissal, and even at present, the constable has not been convicted; the trial in the murder case is still pending.
Background of the Case
The CISF head constable was accused in a murder case and spent approximately four months in jail before being granted bail. During this period, he was placed under suspension. Subsequently, the force initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, serving him with a chargesheet that alleged gross misconduct due to his involvement in the criminal case. This culminated in his removal from service, leading to the forfeiture of all his dues and emoluments.
Challenging this termination, the constable approached a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in his favour and quashed the removal order. The central government then appealed this decision before the division bench.
Court's Scrutiny and Final Decision
The division bench meticulously examined the case and concurred with the single judge's view. The court pointed out that the sole charge against the employee was his incarceration in a heinous case, absent any conviction. It questioned the logic of the disciplinary authority, stating it was "unthinkable" how an opinion on his fitness for duty could be formed merely based on his arrest and alleged involvement.
"The very initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of this case, for imposing punishment of removal was without any factual and legal basis," the bench remarked, upholding the single judge's order to quash the termination. The court also directed the concerned authorities to decide on the payment of the constable's pending dues as per applicable service rules.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to government departments and disciplinary authorities about the legal safeguards available to employees and the necessity of a concrete conviction, not mere arrest, to justify the extreme penalty of removal from service.
