IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6606 of 2009 Jaj Prasad Yadav @ Jaj Yadav @ Jai Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 28/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a Constable, was made an accused in a police case under Sections- 302, 307 and other provisions of I.P.C. It led to a departmental proceeding and consequent dismissal on 20.6.1990 unsuccessfully challenged in C.W.J.C. No.29.09.1992. Subsequently, on 31.8.1998 the petitioner was acquitted in the sessions trial. The Court has gone through the judgment. No prosecution witnesses appeared. It is difficult to understand the nature of the sessions trial held except an empty formality, a travesty of law and justice. The petitioner approached this Court again for reinstatement pursuant to the acquittal in C.W.J.C. No.930/2000 unsuccessfully. The submission now is that his representations to be considered for reinstatement was not being disposed. The petitioner has not been granted an honourable acquittal. The conviction in the 2 departmental proceeding stands confirmed. The nature of the acquittal in the sessions trial cannot come to his aid. Even if it were to be an acquittal on benefit of doubt, the discretion still remains with the employer whether it would like to reinstate such a person or not as held at paragraph-5 in (1997) 4 SCC 385 (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus BIHARI LAL SIDHANA). “5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary government servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of 3 public money.” The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)