BABU LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 16-01-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BABU LAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
I 
JANUARY 16, 1991 
,.;., 
[B.C. RAY AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
B 
Food Supplies Department-Sub-lnspector-'-Appointed on ad-hoc 
temporary basis-Service terminated b~cause of pendency of criminal 
proceedings-Later acquitted-Order terminating services held illegal-
,__/ 
Entitled to regularisation of service. 
The appellant was appointed as Sub-Inspector, Food & Supplies c 
by respondent No. 2 on 13.4.1975 on ad-hoc basis ~gainst service-man 
quota; the post being purely temporary liable to be terminated without 
notice and without assigning any reasons or on arrival of a regular 
candidate. The appellant continued in service on that post till 
November 17, 1980, when bis services were terminated. Prior to the D 
y-" 
termination of bis service be was placed under suspension on April IS, 
1980 in view of the criminal proceedings under Section 420, IPC pend-
ing against him and before the culmination of criminal proceedings, his 
services were terminated by order dated November 17, 1980~ as afore-
said. Criminal case against the appellant was decided on October 
21, 1981 wherein be was acquitted of the charge. The appellant on 
E 
receiving the order of termination of his services filed Civil Suit 453 of 
~ 1981 in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul praying for a declara-
tion that the orders of suspension as also termination were illegal, 
wrong, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and that the appellant was 
entitled to reinstatement and regularisation of his service under the 
-
Government notification dated 1.1.1980 issued by the Chief Secretary 
F 
to the Government of Haryana authorising regularisation of such 
. ad-hoc e~pI~rees who held the Class m pos.!S for a minimum period of 
""' 
two· years. According to the appellant bis case was covered by the said 
~ notification and as such be was entitled to all the benefits of service. The 
, 
Senior Sub Judge held that as the appellant was acquitted of the 
offence, the authorities should have revoked the suspension order and 
G 
have paid the pay for the period for which the appellant remained 
under suspension and thus allowed to the appellant all the benefits. An 
appeal was taken by the respondents to the Addi . .Disttict Judge who 
affirmed the order of the trial court holding that no enquiry was con-
/ 
-{ 
ducted before termination of the service of the appellant. Against the 
order of the Addi. District Judge, the respondents preferred an appea( H 
7'\ 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 
before the High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal holding 
A 
that the appellant was not entitled to be regularised automatically 
unless he fulfilled all the conditions given in the notification. It was also 
A 
-
held that the case of the appellant was considered for regularisation by 
the Department but the same was not found suitable; the services of the 
appellant were terminated in accordance with the terms of his appoint-
B 
ment. The appellant has rded this appeal against that order in this court 
after obtaining special leave. 
D 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
~ 
HELD: The order of suspension made by the respondent No. 2 is 
admittedly on the sole ground that criminal proceeding was pending 
against the appellant. The order of termination had been made illegally 
during the pendency of the order of suspension and also during the 
pendency of the criminal proceeding which ultimately ended with the 
acquittal of the appellant. The settled position in law is that the appel-
lant whp was suspended on the ground of pendency of criminal proceed-
ing against him, on being acquitted of the criminal charge is entitled to 
be reinstated in service. His acquittal from the criminal charge does not 
debar the disciplinary authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings 
and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant pass an 
order of termination on the basis of the terms and conditions of the 
order of his_ appointment. [78C-E] 
As the appellant whose name was sent through Employment 
Exchange and who was appointed and bas completed two years service 
on 31.12.1~79, he is entitled to be con8idered for regularisation in the 
post of Sub-hispector, Food and Supplies. [78E] 
' 
....,_............_ 
--
F 
Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1986] 4 S.C.C. 
141; Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 453; 
Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1987] 4 S.L.R. 576~ 
re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.