Burden To Prove Alleged Charges Lies Upon Employer: Rajasthan HC Grants Retiral Benefits To Constable Dismissed In 1997
The Rajasthan High Court ordered the grant of retiral benefits to a constable who was dismissed from service in 1997 observing that in service jurisprudence, the burden to prove an alleged charge lies upon the employer.
The Bench quashed and set aside the order issued by the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC) that removed the Constable (petitioner) from service from the post of a Constable. The Court stated that the dismissal order was “non-speaking, illegal and arbitrary” and was passed without any cogent or valid evidence to prove the allegations levelled.
A Single Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed, “In service jurisprudence, the burden to prove the alleged charges lies upon the respondents and not that he has to prove his innocence and therefore the impugned order whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eye of law as same are non-speaking, illegal and arbitrary and passed without there being any cogent and valid evidence to prove the allegations leveled against the petitioner.”
Advocate Sarita Chaudhary represented the petitioner, while GC Pradeep Kalwania appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner argued that his dismissal from the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service was based on charges for which he was later acquitted by the trial court. The petitioner was initially convicted under Sections 420 and 471 of the IPC, but the Appellate Court acquitted him of all charges. Despite this, the departmental authorities upheld his dismissal without considering the acquittal in the criminal case.
“In the remote rural areas in 1970’s-80 the child marriages were solemnized in many cases and even today also because of child marriages prevalent in some areas, the Division Bench of this Court in one of the matter has issued directions to the Administration to stop the child marriages and also observed that the local public representatives would be held accountable in case of any child marriage, if traced out. These things are being referred for the reason that even at the olden times i.e. in the year 1981 a person may be married and may have three children before he attains the age of 25 years,” the Court remarked.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner observing that the verification form filed by the petitioner at the time of appointment stated that he was married with three children, which showed that could not be less than 25 years of age. The High Court clarified that such observations were based on mere assumptions.
Consequently, the Court held, “If the petitioner would have been in service then he would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 2018. Thus, the respondents are directed to extend the consequential benefits and retiral benefits to the petitioner within four months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order treating him to be in service as if no dismissal order was ever passed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Shri Sunder Pal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:26897)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sarita Chaudhary
Respondents: GC Pradeep Kalwania and Shivam Chauhan
