1 CGHC010278252026 2026:CGHC:30943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5500 of 2026 1 - Horilal Yadav S/o Malikram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o C I M S Colony, D-01, Type 03, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur A Central University Established By The Central Universities Act, 2009, No. 25, Of 2009, Through The Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Koni Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Vice Chancellor Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Koni Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Executive Counsel Through Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Koni Bilaspur ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.22 10:53:39 +0530 2 quashed/set-aside the order dated 03-07-2026 (Annexure P-1) and Removal Order dated 26-8-2013 (sic 24-08-2013) (Annexure P-2.) 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner on the service with grant of consequential benefits. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authority that the interruption and gap is in service period may be treated as continued and seniority benefits be also given. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Management Studies), vide order dated 20/12/2011 for two years of probation period at respondents/University. During his probation period of service, petitioner’s wife committed suicide and thereafter, criminal allegation made against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC. By the order dated 26/08/2013 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner was 3 removed from the service on the ground of criminal offence has been registered against the petitioner; the conduct of the petitioner not satisfactory and also as per Clause 7 of the appointment order. (ii) Aggrieved by the order of removal dated 26/08/2013, the petitioner had filed WPS No.804/2016 and the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to challenge the same, after the order of acquittal in the criminal proceedings. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 27/01/2015 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST Case No.185/2013, convicted the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing CRA No.178/2015 before this Court and vide judgment dated 18/02/2026, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the competent authority to reinstate him in service. However, the representations filed by the petitioner have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Management Studies), vide order dated 20/12/2011 for two years of probation period at respondents/University. She submits that the petitioner has been acquitted by this Court of all the charges and that no 4 departmental enquiry was ever instituted or remained pending against him. Learned counsel further submits that the entire period of his removal, the petitioner remained unemployed and had no source of income. The petitioner, being a person with disability, has suffered immense mental, social, and financial hardship for the past thirteen years due to his removal from service. The petitioner has already been acquitted by this Court. In view of such acquittal, the very basis of the impugned order no longer survives. Accordingly, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential service benefits in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is contended that during the petitioner's probation period, a criminal case was registered against him in connection with the death of his wife. Consequently, by order dated 26.08.2013, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that his conduct during the probation period was found to be unsatisfactory, in accordance with the decision of the Executive Council taken in its meeting dated 24.08.2013 and Clause 7 of the appointment letter. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's claim for reinstatement and consequential service benefits has been rightly rejected. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an ex-employee of respondents/University who was removed from service on 26/08/2013 when a criminal case was pending against him under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC and by the judgment of trial Court, he was convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation. When the judgment was challenged before this Court, the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 7. It is also not in dispute that, after the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 20.12.2011, the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered against him during his probation period. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.08.2013, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that his conduct during the probation period was found to be unsatisfactory and owing to registration of criminal case and his arrest, the image of the University was tarnished and the same has been passed in accordance with the decision of the Executive Council taken in its meeting dated 24.08.2013 and also as per Clause 7 of the appointment letter. 8. Clause 7 of the appointment order dated 20/12/2011 issued by the respondents/University reads thus:- 6 “7. Your appointment is on probation for two years, which may, if needed, be extended to another year. The services of the appointee may be terminated if found unsatisfactory during the probation period. The decision of the University in this regard shall be final.” 9. After going through the Clause 7 of the appointment order, it is stated that the appointment made is on probation for two years, which may, if needed, be extended to another year. The services of the appointee may be terminated if found unsatisfactory during the probation period. The decision of the University in this regard shall be final. Thereafter, by acting upon the said clause, the Executive Council in its meeting dated 24.08.2013, terminate the petitioner from the service as his conduct during the probation period was found to be unsatisfactory. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. In exercise of the power conferred under Clause 7 of the appointment order, the Executive Council, in its meeting dated 24.08.2013, found the petitioner's conduct during the probation period to be unsatisfactory and, accordingly, his services were terminated by order impugned dated 26.08.2013. The termination was thus an order passed during the probation period in terms of the conditions of appointment 7 and was not founded upon the petitioner's conviction. The subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by this Court does not, by itself, render the termination order illegal or create an right to reinstatement or consequential service benefits, particularly when the termination was effected in accordance with the terms and conditions governing probationary service. In such circumstances, no arbitrariness or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep