Can’t Remove Employee For More Than One Decade Solely On Ground Criminal Case Pendency: Supreme Court Grants ₹5L Compensation To Former Punjab SPO
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the reversal of an original decree in a first appeal.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ordered the authorities to pay Rs 5 lakh to a former SPO who worked in Punjab while observing that no law authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the reversal of an original decree in a first appeal, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which was affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The act of termination of service, in the circumstances, cannot be justified.”
Advocate Pardeep Gupta represented the Appellant while AOR Karan Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The civil appeal by special leave, granted on 23rd September, 2016, was at the instance of the appellant who, as plaintiff, had successfully instituted a suit in the Trial Court. He had prayed for a declaration that the act of one of the authorities in not allowing him to join as a Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion and as a Special Police Officer in Batala district was illegal, invalid, unlawful, null and void. It was the case of the appellant that he was entitled to join as a Constable or Special Police Officer with consequential relief.
The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. However, the appellant was held not entitled to wages from the date of his dismissal till reinstatement. The Defendants in the suit carried the decree in appeal before the District Judge. They succeeded before the appellate court, which set aside the decree under challenge and dismissed the suit of the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that despite having reported on August 30, 2002, in the office of the Commandant, IRB, Patiala, the appellant was denied joining on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. At the relevant time, the appellant was an accused in a case registered under Sections 324,326,34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was convicted under Section 324,326 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 and 3 years, respectively. The appellate court maintained the conviction under Section 324 but set aside the conviction under Section 326. In 2003, the appellant was discharged from service with reference to pending criminal proceedings against him.
Referring to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, the Bench held that the same cannot come to the rescue of a convict-employee released on probation insofar as the affectation of his service career is concerned.
Considering that the appeal originated from a suit and not a writ petition and observing that the powers of the civil court are not as wide as the powers of a writ court, the Bench held that the appellant must be held to be bound by the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bench noted that the appellant was extended a raw deal by reason of his being discharged from service merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. “The fact of discharge on the stated ground is admitted by the respondents. That the appellant at a later stage stood convicted under Section 324, IPC cannot cure the illegality vitiating the order of discharge when it was made. It is possible, because of ill-advice, the frame of the suit was not proper”, it added.
The Bench also noted that the appellant did not challenge the order of discharge and even the prayers were defective. As per the Bench, the relief of reinstatement in service could not have been granted by the civil court in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. “It is only damages that the appellant could have claimed and been awarded”, it stated.
Thus, invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh only to the appellant.
Cause Title: SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 798)
Appellant: Advocates Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta,Rakshit Rathi, Krishna Kumar, Nandani Gupta, AOR Mrs. Vipin Gupta
Respondent: AOR Karan Sharma, Advocate Mohit Siwach