Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21376 of 2011 1. Madheshwar Yadav Son Of Dhanu Yadav Resident Of Thakur Bigha, Post Office - Arai, Police Station- Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary 2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General (I.G.), Magadh Range 4. The Deputy Inspector General (D. I. G.) Magadh Range, Government Of Bihar, Gaya 5. The District Magistrate, District - Aurangabad 6. The Superintendent Of Police, District - Aurangabad 7. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station - Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad ---------------------------------- 2. 03.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Aurangabad in Misc. Service Appeal No. 36 of 2010 declining to reinstate him in service. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chaukidar in 1978. In 1982 he was made an accused in a Criminal Case under [STATUTE] leading to discharge from service. He has been acquitted in the criminal trial on 2.7.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 1988/67 of 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for discharge no 2 more exists. There is no justification for the respondents to deny him reinstatement. Counsel for the State opposing the application submits that consequent to the discharge of the petitioner, one Dudheshwar Yadav son of Gajadhar Yadav has been appointed on the vacancy. Acquittal in the criminal trial does not ipso facto entitle him to reinstatement as a matter of right. The impugned order records that the petitioner was appointed as an Awji Chaukidar and not as a regular Chaukidar in 1978. He was removed from that status in 1982. The post of Chaukidar was declared Government post on 1.1.1990. The petitioner did not hold any post in any capacity on that date. The contention of the petitioner that if he was removed on ground of being made an accused in the criminal case, acquittal entitles him to reinstatement as a matter of right does not appeal to the Court. If his removal was consequent to his implication in a criminal case under [STATUTE] , a fact he cannot deny, the question of any show cause notice to him before removal is frivolously irrelevant. 3 The Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning contained in the order dated 20.8.2010. Quite apart from the issue that as on 1.1.1990 he was not in service as a Chaukidar in any capacity and thus not entitled to reinstatement, it has been held in (2005) 5 SCC 100 that even acquittal in the criminal case does not give a vested right to demand a reinstatement. The discretion remains of the employer. The acquittal was in 2002. The writ petition has been filed in 2011, with no explanation for this long inordinate delay. The Court has also gone through the judgment of the Sessions Court in a serious trial under [STATUTE] . which is barely in half a page. The Court refrains from any further observation. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.