Once Acquitted, No Stigma Can Attach—Bombay High Court Quashes Termination of Teacher

Employment Cannot Be Denied Based on a Pending Criminal Case If Acquittal Has Been Granted – Bombay High Court struck down the wrongful termination of a teacher whose employment was ended solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, despite his subsequent acquittal. The Court directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages, strongly criticizing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Education Department for ignoring the acquittal while issuing the termination order.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, delivering the judgment, made it clear: "The foundational reason for terminating the petitioner was the pendency of the criminal case. Ironically, though the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated 30th October, 2021, the Education Officer terminated his services on 12th April, 2022. Such an action is legally unsustainable."

Termination Despite Acquittal: The Case of a Wrongfully Removed Teacher

The petitioner, Dinesh Manik Suryavanshi, was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) in the Maharashtra Housing Board English School, Mumbai, operated by the BMC Education Department. His appointment order was issued on January 23, 2020, and he joined service on January 31, 2020.

During his police verification, it was found that a criminal case (C.R. No.I - 333 of 2017) was pending against him. However, before his termination, the case was concluded, and he was acquitted of all charges on October 30, 2021, in R.C.C. No. 767 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

Despite being fully aware of the acquittal, the Education Officer proceeded to terminate the petitioner’s services on April 12, 2022, citing the police clearance report, which still reflected the past pending case. The petitioner challenged this arbitrary termination before the Bombay High Court, arguing that it violated fundamental principles of justice and due process.

Acquittal Must Be Respected—Employment Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily

The Bombay High Court held that once a person has been acquitted in a criminal case, they cannot be denied employment based on outdated police records. The Education Department’s decision to terminate the petitioner was illegal and in complete disregard of the acquittal order.

Expressing disapproval of the BMC’s action, the Bench observed: "It is, thus, obvious that the Education Officer was aware of the judgment of acquittal dated 30th October, 2021, and yet, he terminated the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 12th April, 2022. Such an action is not only unjustified but reflects arbitrary exercise of power."

The Court found no legal justification for the termination, emphasizing that employment decisions cannot be based on outdated police verification reports when an acquittal has already been secured.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had reapplied for the same post in February 2024, was reselected, and was reappointed as a Shikshan Sevak on August 12, 2024. However, the Court held that this subsequent appointment was irrelevant in light of the wrongful termination, stating: "The subsequent selection of the petitioner, vide appointment order dated 12th August, 2024, is treated as being inconsequential, considering the effect of this judgment."

Back Wages Awarded—Court Accepts Partial Settlement But Leaves Room for Full Claim

The petitioner, through his advocate, informed the Court that though he was entitled to full back wages due to the illegal termination, he was willing to accept 50% back wages to settle the matter amicably. However, he reserved his right to claim full back wages if the BMC chose to litigate further.

The Court accepted this compromise and directed the BMC to pay 50% of the back wages within 60 days, warning that failure to do so would result in 6% simple interest per annum being imposed.

The judgment read: "Considering the statement of the petitioner and keeping in view the glaring aspect that the Education Officer terminated the service of the petitioner despite fully knowing that he had received judgment of acquittal on 30th October, 2021, we are granting 50% back wages. However, if the Corporation decides to further litigate on this point, the prayer for full back wages is kept open."

Government Departments Must Ensure Police Reports Are Updated

The Court also directed the BMC Education Department to ensure that police clearance certificates are updated after an acquittal, so that such wrongful terminations do not occur in the future. The Court relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which held that: "If a person is acquitted of criminal charges, the stigma of the case cannot be used to deny employment unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying such denial."

The judgment sent a clear message that government departments must respect court verdicts and ensure that acquitted individuals are not unfairly deprived of their rights.

Bombay High Court Stands Against Arbitrary Termination

With this ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal in a criminal case must be respected and cannot be ignored by government authorities when deciding employment matters. The judgment ensures that individuals who have been legally cleared of criminal charges do not continue to suffer discrimination due to bureaucratic inefficiency or outdated police reports.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, concluding the judgment, firmly held: "Rule is made partly absolute. The impugned termination order dated 12th April, 2022, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages, to be paid within 60 days, failing which the amount shall carry an interest of 6% per annum."

This ruling serves as a precedent ensuring that an acquittal in a criminal case must be honored by public authorities, preventing wrongful terminations based on outdated police verification reports.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2025