[2025:RJ-JP:28414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14495/2021 Ganesh Sahai Bairwa S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bairwa Ki Dhani, Gudha Bairsal, Tehsil Mozamabad, District Jaipur (Raj.)-303338 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Agriculture Commissionerate, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Director Agriculture (Administration), Government Of Rajasthan, Agriculture Commissionerate, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension), Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/07/2025 1. Heard counsel for both the parties, perused the pleadings and material placed on record. 2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Agriculture Supervisor vide appointment order dated 30.07.2020 and he joined in pursuance thereof, however, vide subsequent order dated 02.11.2021, his appointment has been cancelled on the ground that in police verification, one criminal case bearing No.117/2019 for offences under Section 376 IPC was found under trial against him and pending before the Criminal Court. 3. At the outset, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and it is not a [2025:RJ-JP:28414] (2 of 4) [CW-14495/2021] case of concealment of criminal case by petitioner and further in such criminal case, after full-fledged trial, petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid charge of offences under Sections 376 & 450 IPC vide judgment dated 18.04.2023, delivered by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. The judgment of acquittal has attained finality. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that mere false implication of petitioner for the offence(s) referred hereinabove, does not entails cancellation of his appointment, more so now after his acquittal, mere registration of criminal case should not come in way to restore his appointment order. Learned counsel submits, now there is no hurdle from discharging duties by petitioner as Agriculture Supervisor nor such criminal case, impinge him to discharge his duties, after acquittal. 5. Counsel for respondents, does not dispute the appointment of petitioner on merits vide order dated 30.07.2020 and same was cancelled only on the basis of pendency of criminal case. It is also not in dispute that the judgment dated 18.04.2023, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been acquitted from the offences, has attained finality. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. As far as factual matrix of present case is concerned, it is not in dispute that appointment of petitioner was made on merits on the post of Agriculture Supervisor vide order dated 30.07.2020 and in pursuance thereof he joined his services. Thereafter, his appointment has been cancelled vide impugned order dated 02.11.2021, due to pendency of a criminal case, however later on, [2025:RJ-JP:28414] (3 of 4) [CW-14495/2021] petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 18.04.2023, which has attained finality. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Joginder Singh Vs. State (UT of Chandigarh) [(2015) 2 SCC 377], observed in para No.25 as under: "25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct of the appellant was not up to the mark to appoint him to the post." 9. The ratio decidendi has been followed and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an another judgment in case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[(2019) 17 SCC 696]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that a single misadventure or misdemeanor of an aspirant, should not be always sufficient to deny appointment, more so, when his/her candidature has been found to be suitable in all other aspect for grant of appointment. 10. It is well settled that after granting appointment to a candidate, his/her appointment should not be cancelled ordinarily. In the case at hand, the appointment of petitioner was cancelled merely on account of registration and pendency of a criminal case wherein ultimately petitioner has been declared acquitted. The possibility of false implication of petitioner in the present criminal case may also not be ruled out. If, despite acquittal of petitioner, the case for restoration of appointment is not considered, same would lead to a bad precedent. 11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12298/2014 titled as 'Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.' decided on 17.09.2015 has observed that [2025:RJ-JP:28414] (4 of 4) [CW-14495/2021] the service benefits of the petitioner cannot be withheld when no adverse order exists against an employee. The ratio decidendi of the order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.498/2016 titled as 'State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ravindra Singh'. 12. Having adverted to the facts of the case in hand, this Court finds that after acquittal of petitioner from the charges, no adversity is attached to his conduct and mere registration of criminal case does not entail denial to restore the order of appointment. Hence, this Court finds that the order of cancellation dated 02.11.2021 is not liable to sustain. 13. As a final result, the instant writ petition succeeds and the order of cancellation dated 02.11.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Respondents are directed to reconsider the restoration of appointment of petitioner and allow him to join on the post of Agriculture Supervisor, pursuant to his appointment order dated 30.07.2020. Needful be done within a period of two months. 15. All the pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/130