1 2025:CGHC:41340-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 608 of 2025 H. C. Prakash S/o Ram Sahai Dahariya, Aged About 57 Years R/o Behind Choubey Choul, Ambedkar Ward, Mungeli, District Mungeli, P.S. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, P.S. Rakhi Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No.1) 2. Director, Public Education, Raipur, Division, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) 3. District Education Officer, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.19 11:08:30 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1925 of 2016 (H.C. Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as an Upper Division Teacher in a Government School. An FIR was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that he had kidnapped and committed rape upon a student of the said school. After trial, the learned Sessions Court, Baloda Bazar, vide judgment dated 28.08.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2000, convicted the appellant for the said offences. Consequent to such conviction, the appellant’s services were terminated on 30.12.2005 under Rule 10(8) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘Rules of 1966’). Thereafter, the appellant preferred CRA No. 816 of 2001 before this Court. By judgment dated 21.08.2015, this Court acquitted him of the 3 charges by extending the benefit of doubt, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. 4. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing WPS No.1925 of 2016 contending that in view of his acquittal, the order of dismissal ceased to operate and that he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, dismissed the writ petition holding that the acquittal was not “honourable” but one based on benefit of doubt, and therefore, no right accrued to the appellant to claim reinstatement or consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of termination was passed solely on the basis of conviction in the criminal case, without holding any departmental enquiry as mandated under the Rules of 1966. He contended that once the conviction did not survive, the foundation of termination also fell, and the appellant ought to have been reinstated. He further urged that the acquittal in CRA No. 816 of 2001, though couched in the expression “benefit of doubt”, was based on categorical findings that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as anything less than a clean acquittal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in WPCR No.340 of 2021, decided on 27.06.2023. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that both the Rules of 1966 and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (for short, ‘Rules of 1961’) are silent on reinstatement upon acquittal in criminal cases. In 4 absence of such statutory provision, the appellant cannot claim reinstatement as a matter of right. He placed strong reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598, R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 787, State of Assam v. Raghav Rajgopalachari, reported in 1972 SLR 44 (SC), RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 541, and Union of India v. Methu Meda, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the record. 8. It is undisputed that the appellant’s termination was on account of conviction by the learned trial Court. Though subsequently acquitted, the acquittal was not honourable, but by granting benefit of doubt. The acquittal was founded upon observations that the victim’s conduct and the evidence did not firmly establish the prosecution case, and hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences. 9. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. In R.P. Kapur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings may follow even after acquittal if the acquittal is not honourable. In Raghav Rajgopalachari (supra), it was explained that the expression “honourable acquittal” is not a term of art in criminal jurisprudence, but the nature of acquittal is to be appreciated on the overall findings of the Court. 10. In Bhopal Singh Panchal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that acquittal by giving benefit of doubt does not entitle 5 the employee to reinstatement, as such acquittal is not equivalent to honourable exoneration. Similarly, in S. Samuthiram (supra), the Court reiterated that mere acquittal, unless honourable and coupled with statutory rules providing reinstatement, does not confer any right on the employee. The same principle has been reaffirmed in Methu Meda (supra). 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is clear that there is no provision under the Rules of 1961 or the Rules of 1966 which confers a right of reinstatement upon acquittal. Further, the acquittal of the appellant cannot be treated as honourable, but is one based on benefit of doubt. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision in WPCR No. 340 of 2021 is misplaced, as the facts therein are distinguishable and not comparable to the present matter. 12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Hence, we find no error, illegality or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference in the present appeal. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal being devoid of substance, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan