2025:HHC:26391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.497 of 2025 Decided on: 01.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Tripta Devi & anr. ...Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista and Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 02.12.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWPOA No.1069 of 2019, titled Tripta Devi & another versus State of H.P. & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, upholding the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, rejecting their representation against termination as JBT Teachers. 2. The learned Single Judge, in principle, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:26391 - 2 - concluded that merely on account of acquittal in the criminal proceedings, reinstatement was not liable to be granted and since the termination order had not been set aside by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it was not possible to reinstate the employees. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that the appointment of the writ petitioners was made on 16.08.1988 and their termination was ordered on 18.01.1989 on the ground that the JBT Certificates produced by them were fake. The criminal proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners had led to their acquittal by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla on 25.09.2006. Thereafter, State was also unsuccessful in the appeal before this Court, which was dismissed on 16.03.2011. Thereafter, the appellants submitted a representation on 17.10.2011, which was rejected on 10.12.2012, leading to the filing of the Original Application before the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal. On transfer to this Court, the writ petition was rejected on the ground that the cause of action had arisen on 18.01.1989 and that the filing of the petition in March 2014, subsequent to the rejection order of 10.12.2012, would not revive the cause of action. 2025:HHC:26391 - 3 - 4. It has also been noticed that one Shri B. K. Sondhi (Assistant Director) had found the certificates to be fake and notices were issued to the writ petitioners, who failed to satisfy the said officer about the genuineness of the certificates. 5. The stand of the State in the written statement before the learned Single Judge, was that an opportunity had been afforded to the writ petitioners to appear before Mr. B.K. Sondhi (Assistant Director) for verification of their certificates, which they apparently, failed to avail. 6. The learned Single Judge noticed that in similar circumstances, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein the Tribunal had allowed the Original Applications on the ground that services were terminated without issuance of a show cause notice and without holding a departmental inquiry and the Apex Court, in such cases, granted liberty to the State to complete the inquiry proceedings, thereby giving the State the right to establish whether the certificates in question were fake or otherwise. 7. As noticed above, the termination of the writ petitioners was effected way back on 18.01.1989. A Perusal of the said order [Annexure P-3, in the writ record], which 2025:HHC:26391 - 4 - was never challenged, reveals that the certificates produced by the writ petitioners were found to be vague and bogus, leading to their services being terminated with immediate effect. The said order was not based on any conviction recorded by a competent Court, therefore, the argument which is now raised that on account of their acquittal, the writ petitioners would be entitled to be put back in service in view of the order passed by the authorities on 10.12.2012, is not liable to be sustained, cannot be accepted. 8. Had the termination been on the basis of the criminal proceedings or on the basis of conviction, the argument was liable to be accepted. Way back in 1989, the dismissal was done on account of vague and bogus certificates. Though prosecution has not been able to prove the same and the writ petitioners were acquitted, but the same does not give a cause of action at this belated stage for reinstatement. 9. Learned Single Judge has also noticed that the employees, as such, have already crossed the age of retirement, and therefore, any direction for reinstatement or consequential benefits would amount to unjust enrichment at the cost of the State, when they have not 2025:HHC:26391 - 5 - worked for a single day since 1989. 10. Once the writ petitioners having failed to challenge the order of termination dated 18.01.1989 before the Court of competent jurisdiction at that point of time, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would warrant interference. 11. It is also a settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt extended in criminal proceedings is on account of the principle that the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt. Therefore, on account of prosecution having failed to do so, which has led to acquittal of the appellants, could not be cause of action to revive their case for reinstatement. 12. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 01, 2025 [Shivender/Bhardwaj]