Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rohitashva Kumar Daila S/O Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:17306) on 23 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17306]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6640/2019
Rohitashva Kumar Daila S/o Shri Chandgiram, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Village & Post Khanpur, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. District Education Officer, (H.Q.) Secondary Education,
Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
REPORTABLE
23/04/2026
1. On the request and with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, the present writ petition is
taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned suspension order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.1) and the
impugned order of dismissal dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.2), and
also consequentially sought directions to reinstate the petitioner to
the post which he was occupying prior to his dismissal.
3. The facts disclose that initially, the petitioner was suspended
by the order dated 12.02.2019 on coming to know of the
conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court where the criminal
proceedings were pending against him. Subsequently, vide order
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (2 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
dated 25.02.2019, the petitioner was dismissed from the service
on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case by invoking the
powers under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules of 1950’).
4. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging
his conviction and sentence in the criminal case. The Appellate
Court, vide order dated 28.02.2019, acquitted the petitioner of the
criminal charges. Subsequent to the acquittal, the petitioner
approached the respondent authorities and requested them to
reinstate him in light of the order passed by the Appellate Court
acquitting him of the criminal charges.
5. The judgment of the Appellate Court along with the
representation was submitted on 07.03.2019, and later another
representation was submitted on 12.03.2019. When no action was
taken, the present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned
suspension and dismissal orders.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the dismissal of the petitioner was on the basis of his
conviction in a criminal case, and once the conviction is set aside
by the Appellate Court and he is acquitted, the respondent
authorities are required to recall or revoke the dismissal order, and
the petitioner shall be reinstated. The respondent authorities have
no authority to consider whether the acquittal is honourable or on
benefit of doubt in order to reinstate the petitioner.
7. It is also his contention that Circular No. F.9(7) Karmik/A-III/
75 of the State Government, issued on 24.04.1990, clearly
requires the respondent authorities to consider the judgment of
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (3 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
acquittal and take necessary steps to revoke the order of dismissal
or removal. The respondent authorities kept quiet without taking
any action thereon; therefore, the present writ petition has been
filed.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the petitioner was terminated on the basis of
conviction in a criminal case by invoking the powers under Rule 19
of the Rules of 1950, and he was subsequently acquitted. The
respondent authorities are entitled to examine the judgment of
acquittal to determine whether the acquittal was honourable or on
benefit of doubt. He is entitled to be reinstated only if the
judgment of acquittal is honourable; if it is a doubtful acquittal, he
is not entitled to reinstatement. The substance of his argument is
that acquittal does not result in automatic reinstatement, but the
authorities have discretion to examine whether the acquittal is
doubtful or honourable.
9. It is also his submission that the order of dismissal cannot be
set aside for the reason that the impugned orders do not suffer
from any illegality as when the orders were passed, the
circumstance of acquittal did not exist and the conviction was the
only criterion for deciding the dismissal; therefore, the orders
cannot be set aside. At most, the petitioner is entitled to
reconsideration of the order of dismissal based on the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Revisional Court or Appellate Court.
10. To answer the rival contentions, this Court is required to
examine whether the reinstatement of the petitioner, who was
dismissed or removed from service on the basis of conviction in a
criminal case by invoking the powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (4 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
1950, is automatic upon acquittal by higher forums or whether the
employer has any discretion to examine the merits of the acquittal
for the purpose of reinstatement based on such acquittal. In this
regard, it is relevant to refer to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950,
which reads as under:
“19. Special procedure in certain cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 16, 17 and 18,
(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government
Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to him
conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not
reasonably practicable to follow the procedure
prescribed in the said rules; or
(iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest
of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow
such procedure, the disciplinary Authority may consider
the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as
it deems fit.
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before
passing such orders in any case in which such consultation
is necessary.”
11. A reading of the relevant provisions makes it clear that the
employer has the authority to impose penalties which are
allowable under Rules 16, 17, and 18 of the Rules of 1950 upon
conviction on criminal charges by the competent Criminal Court.
12. It is not in dispute in the present case that when the order of
dismissal was passed, the conviction and sentence imposed by
the Criminal Court was in operation, and consequently, Rule 19 of
the Rules of 1950 could be validly invoked to pass any order of
punishment, including dismissal. When this Court tests the order
of dismissal in the context of the facts existing on the date of
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (5 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
passing the dismissal order, this Court finds that there is no
illegality in the order of dismissal. In order to test the validity or
invalidity of the dismissal order, any subsequent event is
immaterial, and the facts and material that existed at the time of
the dismissal order are the only relevant factors; therefore, the
order of dismissal cannot be found fault based on subsequent
events.
13. The further question is, when the order of conviction is set
aside in appeal or revision, whether the respondent authorities are
required to consider the said judgment and pass necessary orders
as permitted under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950 and the circular
issued by the State Government.
14. In the present case, the petitioner has already approached
the respondent authorities through representations along with the
judgment of acquittal, and no orders have been passed, which has
resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court.
15. The pleadings of the respondents show that the petitioner is
not entitled to automatic reinstatement, but that his reinstatement
is subject to examination of the judgment of acquittal by the
employer to determine whether the acquittal was honourable or
doubtful. These pleadings are clearly indicative of the decision
likely to be taken by the respondent authorities in the event that
the representations of the petitioner are directed to be considered.
Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the
respondent authorities have the authority to assess the judgment
of acquittal for the purpose of reinstatement of the petitioner, or
whether reinstatement is automatic consequent upon acquittal on
criminal charges.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (6 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
16. The parties have relied upon various judgments in support of
their respective contentions.
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied
upon the following judgments:-
i. Civil Appeal No.4538/1999 : Bahadur S. Solanki Vs.
LIC of India and Anr. decided on 27.03.2001
ii. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9504/2015 : Idan @ Idan
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on
30.03.2016
iii. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3216/2008 : Chandgi
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 13.02.2014
iv. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.236/2007 : Beerbal Khan
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 10.05.2007,
v. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13413/2023 : Sohanlal
Nagar Head Master Vs. The State of Rajasthan &
Ors. decided on 06.04.2026
vi. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.353/2019 in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6688/2012 : State of
Rajasthan Vs. Bheem Singh decided on 07.08.2019
vii. S.B. Civil First Appeal No.392/2018 : Sahiram Vs.
Jaisukh Ram decided on 04.12.2019
viii. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.543/1981 : Hanuman
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on
28.05.1991
ix. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7/1991 along with batch of
writ petitions : Dr. Kailash Chandra Kotia Vs.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development &
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (7 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur decided on
06.12.1991
x. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4402/1989 : Satya Dev
Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on
03.01.1994
xi. D.B. Criminal Jail Appeals No.339/1985 &
359/1985 : Meh Ram Vs. State decided on
14.01.1994
xii. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.877/1979 : Purshottam
Singh Vs. The Union of India decided on 24.01.1980
xiii. F.B. Civil Writ Petition No.321/1967 : Rajvi Amar
Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on
28.03.1979
xiv. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1164/1982 : Dr.
Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided
on 27.09.1982
xv. S.B. Criminal Appeal No.79/1982 : Maghar Singh
Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on 01.10.1982
xvi. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1710/1986 : Bijendra
Singh Vs. Administrator, Sikar Kendriya Bank Ltd.
decided on 14.10.1986
xvii. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4229/2012 : Rai Sahab
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 27.04.2013
xviii.D.B. Criminal Appeal No.117/2010 : Phoosa Ram &
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 20.03.2013
xix. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.699/1984 : Narain Lal
Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on 05.09.1991
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (8 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
xx. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.600/1991 : S.L. Pandya
Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. decided on 05.07.1991
xxi. Civil Appeal No.480(N)/1973 : Shankar Dass Vs.
Union of India & Anr. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 358
18. While defending the same, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents relied upon SLP (C) No.678/2021 :
Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 205.
19. It is suffice to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.8513/2012 : Deputy Inspector
General of Police and Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram reported in
2012 SCC OnLine SC 980, instead of discussing all the decision
relied by the counsels appearing for parties. In the above decision,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the
instances when the honourable or doubtful acquittals are relevant
for the consideration of reinstatement.
20. The question in the present case is that in what situation the
relevance of honourable or doubtful acquittal is to be seen. There
may be instances of drawing parallel proceedings where the
allegations are common in both departmental and criminal
proceedings. Apart from that the appointing/ disciplinary
authority, instead of initiating independent departmental
proceedings parallel to criminal proceeding, may also place the
employee under suspension and wait for the judgment of the
Criminal Court, or may wait for the judgment without suspending
the employee or initiating any departmental proceedings.
21. Another instance is the appointing/ disciplinary authority,
after judgement of conviction, is also entitled to take action by
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (9 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
imposing any of the penalties permissible under the Rules,
depending upon the gravity of the charges leading to conviction in
the criminal case. In the present case, the respondent authorities
have not chosen to initiate any action to initiate parallel
departmental proceedings based on the allegations similar to
criminal case or suspended the petitioner pending the criminal
case; however, they waited for the judgment of the Criminal Court
and, based on that judgment, initiallyproposed action of dismissal.
It is alleged by the respondents’ counsel that the judgment of
conviction was not intimated to the disciplinary authority, and as a
result, the authority remained unaware of the conviction, leading
to suspension and later dismissed the petitioner by invoking the
powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950.
22. The allegation relating to concealment of conviction may
constitute misconduct enabling the disciplinary authority to initiate
separate disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, in the present case,
no such proceedings have been initiated; therefore, the plea of
suppression raised by the respondents has no relevance for
arriving at a just conclusion.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
relevance of honourable and doubtful acquittals. The instances
where such judgments become relevant are that when
departmental and criminal proceedings are initiated
simultaneously, and while the departmental proceedings are
pending an acquittal is recorded in the criminal case, the
disciplinary authority conducting the departmental proceedings is
entitled to examine whether the acquittal is honourable or
doubtful. If it is an honourable acquittal, the authority may
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (10 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
exonerate the employee without proceeding further. There may
also be instances where both proceedings run parallelly and the
departmental proceedings resulted in dismissal or removal;
thereafter, if an acquittal is recorded on appeal/revision, the
authorities are required to reinstate on removal of disqualification.
One more instance is if the relevant Rule provides for
reinstatement, upon acquittal finalization of departmental
proceedings, the disciplinary authority may examine whether the
acquittal is honourable or doubtful. Such distinction is also
relevant if there is acquittal in criminal case before finality is
attained in respect of departmental proceeding. In the present
case, there is no such Rule providing for reinstatement based on
acquittal in a criminal case.
24. Coming to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950, it is the provision
under which the order of dismissal was passed in the present case
on account of conviction in a criminal case. The action under Rule
19 is not based on any independent assessment of evidence, but
solely on the fact of conviction, which enables the disciplinary
authority to impose a penalty as permissible under the Rules. The
power to dismiss or impose a penalty under Rule 19 is based only
on the disqualification arising out of conviction. If such
disqualification is subsequently removed, the authorities are
required to re-examine their decision to reinstate the petitioner
into service. At that situation, the respondent authorities have no
authority to examine whether the acquittal is honourable or
doubtful, as the exercise of power under Rule 19 is based on the
disqualification arising from conviction. Once the conviction is set
aside by acquittal, they have to examine only whether the
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17306] (11 of 11) [CW-6640/2019]
disqualification survives or not. Such examination of honourable
acquittal is relevant only in cases involving parallel proceedings,
which is not the case here. Therefore, the plea of the respondents
that they are entitled to assess the judgment of acquittal to
determine whether it is honourable or doubtful for the purpose of
reinstatement is liable to be rejected.
25. The respondent authorities are required to reconsider the
case of the petitioner for reinstatement and the benefits to which
he may be entitled shall be granted, keeping in view Rule 54 of
the Rules of 1950.
26. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed as follows:
i. The impugned order of suspension dated 12.02.2019
(Annex.1) and the impugned order of dismissal dated
25.02.2019 (Annex.2) do not suffer from any illegality.
ii. The respondents are directed to take decision to re-
instate the petitioner disposing of his representations
submitted by along with the judgment of acquittal by
revoking order of dismissal without considering whether
the acquittal is honourable or doubtful.
iii. The respondent authorities are further directed to take
necessary decisions regarding continuity of service and
emoluments, if any, strictly in accordance with Rule 54 of
the Rules of 1950 and other applicable circulars.
27. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
28. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
124s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:35:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:00:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)