[2026:RJ-JP:27941] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11218/2026 URN: CW / 24873U / 2026 Veerendra Pal Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Nimesh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 66, Shiv Colony, Kishan Marg, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302015 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. The Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division, Jln Marg, Siksha Sankul, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma, AAAG and Mr. Divyansh Mathur for Mr. Manoj Sharma AAG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 21/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-2) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958') on the count that he had been convicted for an offence under Section 498A, IPC and had been punished with a simple imprisonment for a period of three years. [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (2 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that action in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 was in excess of jurisdiction as although the petitioner had been convicted by the Trial Court, an appeal had been preferred by him against the same, which remained pending at that point of time. Further, the offence as alleged was not that grave which required urgent action in terms of Rule 19. 3. Counsel lastly submits that vide order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No. 5054/2009 (Annexure-1), the petitioner was although convicted for offence under Section 498A of IPC, but was acquitted for offence under Section 406, IPC. Now the appeal as preferred by the petitioner against the above order of conviction stands allowed and vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.06, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2025 (Annexure-5), the petitioner has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A, IPC too. In that view, petitioner deserves to be reinstated and the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. In support of his submission Counsel relied upon the Co- ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Rohitashva Kumar Daila Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6640/2019 (decided on 23.04.2026). 5. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submits that dismissal of the petitioner was totally in consonance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958, he having been convicted on a criminal charge. So far as the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner is concerned, it is the discretion of the State-Authorities to take into [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (3 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] consideration the order of acquittal to reach to a conclusion whether the said acquittal was honourable or not. It is only after the said consideration that appropriate decision can be taken. He submits that the matter be disposed of while directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation which shall be decided by the respondent-Authorities within a reasonable period. 6. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 7. In Rohitashva Kumar Daila (supra), while dealing with almost akin facts where the incumbent therein had been dismissed from services on the count of being convicted for a criminal charge and where no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the incumbent, the Court observed and held as under:- "13. The further question is, when the order of conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, whether the respondent authorities are required to consider the said judgment and pass necessary orders as permitted under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950 and the circular issued by the State Government. 14. In the present case, the petitioner has already approached the respondent authorities through representations along with the judgment of acquittal, and no orders have been passed, which has resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court. 15. The pleadings of the respondents show that the petitioner is not entitled to automatic reinstatement, but that his reinstatement is subject to examination of the judgment of acquittal by the employer to determine whether the acquittal was honourable or doubtful. These pleadings are clearly indicative of the decision likely to be taken by the respondent authorities in the event that the representations of the petitioner are directed to be considered. [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (4 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the respondent authorities have the authority to assess the judgment of acquittal for the purpose of reinstatement of the petitioner, or whether reinstatement is automatic consequent upon acquittal on criminal charges. 16. ... ... ... 17. ... ... ... 18. ... ... ... 19. It is suffice to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8513/2012 : Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram reported in 2012 SCC OnLine SC 980, instead of discussing all the decision relied by the counsels appearing for parties. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the instances when the honourable or doubtful acquittals are relevant for the consideration of reinstatement. 20. The question in the present case is that in what situation the relevance of honourable or doubtful acquittal is to be seen. There may be instances of drawing parallel proceedings where the allegations are common in both departmental and criminal proceedings. Apart from that the appointing/ disciplinary authority, instead of initiating independent departmental proceedings parallel to criminal proceeding, may also place the employee under suspension and wait for the judgment of the Criminal Court, or may wait for the judgment without suspending the employee or initiating any departmental proceedings. 21. Another instance is the appointing/ disciplinary authority, after judgement of conviction, is also entitled to take action by imposing any of the penalties permissible under the Rules, depending [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (5 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] upon the gravity of the charges leading to conviction in the criminal case. In the present case, the respondent authorities have not chosen to initiate any action to initiate parallel departmental proceedings based on the allegations similar to criminal case or suspended the petitioner pending the criminal case; however, they waited for the judgment of the Criminal Court and, based on that judgment, initially proposed action of dismissal. It is alleged by the respondents’ counsel that the judgment of conviction was not intimated to the disciplinary authority, and as a result, the authority remained unaware of the conviction, leading to suspension and later dismissed the petitioner by invoking the powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950. 22. The allegation relating to concealment of conviction may constitute misconduct enabling the disciplinary authority to initiate separate disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, in the present case, no such proceedings have been initiated; therefore, the plea of suppression raised by the respondents has no relevance for arriving at a just conclusion. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the relevance of honourable and doubtful acquittals. The instances where such judgments become relevant are that when departmental and criminal proceedings are initiated simultaneously, and while the departmental proceedings are pending an acquittal is recorded in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority conducting the departmental proceedings is entitled to examine whether the acquittal is honourable or doubtful. If it is an honourable acquittal, the authority may exonerate the employee without proceeding further. There may also be instances where both proceedings run [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (6 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] parallelly and the departmental proceedings resulted in dismissal or removal; thereafter, if an acquittal is recorded on appeal/revision, the authorities are required to reinstate on removal of disqualification. One more instance is if the relevant Rule provides for reinstatement, upon acquittal finalization of departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority may examine whether the acquittal is honourable or doubtful. Such distinction is also relevant if there is acquittal in criminal case before finality is attained in respect of departmental proceeding. In the present case, there is no such Rule providing for reinstatement based on acquittal in a criminal case. 24. Coming to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950, it is the provision under which the order of dismissal was passed in the present case on account of conviction in a criminal case. The action under Rule 19 is not based on any independent assessment of evidence, but solely on the fact of conviction, which enables the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty as permissible under the Rules. The power to dismiss or impose a penalty under Rule 19 is based only on the disqualification arising out of conviction. If such disqualification is subsequently removed, the authorities are required to re- examine their decision to reinstate the petitioner into service. At that situation, the respondent authorities have no authority to examine whether the acquittal is honourable or doubtful, as the exercise of power under Rule 19 is based on the disqualification arising from conviction. Once the conviction is set aside by acquittal, they have to examine only whether the disqualification survives or not. Such examination of honourable acquittal is relevant only in cases involving parallel proceedings, which is not [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (7 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] the case here. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that they are entitled to assess the judgment of acquittal to determine whether it is honourable or doubtful for the purpose of reinstatement is liable to be rejected. 25. The respondent authorities are required to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and the benefits to which he may be entitled shall be granted, keeping in view Rule 54 of the Rules of 1950." 8. In the specific opinion of this Court, the ratio as laid down in Rohitashva Kumar Daila (supra) would directly apply to the present matter, the facts being totally akin. Herein too, the petitioner had been dismissed from services in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 on the sole ground of he having been convicted for a criminal charge. Further, herein too, no departmental/disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner. In that view, the ratio as laid down in Rohitashva Kumar Daila (supra) to the effect that the respondents are not entitled to assess the judgment of acquittal, to determine whether it is honourable or doubtful for the purpose of reinstatement, would apply herein too. 9. So far as the order of dismissal is concerned, as held in Rohitashva Kumar Daila (supra), the same being in consonance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 does not deserve any interference. But then, the petitioner having been subsequently acquitted and his dismissal being only for the reason of he having been convicted, the same definitely now deserves reconsideration. 10. In view of the above and in view of the ratio laid down in Rohitashva Kumar Daila (supra), the present writ petition is [2026:RJ-JP:27941] (8 of 8) [CW-11218/2026] partly allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-2) and the Appellate order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure -4) are hereby affirmed. 11. The petitioner shall file a detailed representation with a prayer for his reinstatement within a period of 15 days from now. The Competent Authority/Authorities shall be under an obligation to act upon the said representation within a period of 30 days thereupon. 12. It is made clear that the respondent Authority while deciding the representation shall not be under an entitlement to consider whether the acquittal is honourable or not. 13. The respondent-Authorities are further directed to take a final decision regarding the consequential benefits too, strictly in accordance with Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 14. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 6/ANMOL