ITBP Constable’s Murder Conviction Was Suspended Three Years After His Termination; Jharkhand HC Rejects Reinstatement Bid

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement after the appellate court suspended his conviction, where the termination of his service had already taken effect.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement on the basis of the subsequent suspension of his conviction, as that suspension did not operate retrospectively.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed; any pending interlocutory application was closed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner, a constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, was convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

pp. 1–2

Following the conviction, his service was terminated on 17 February 2016; his appeal against termination was dismissed on 12 February 2018, and his application for restoration of service was rejected on 3 October 2019.

pp. 1–2

While his criminal appeal was pending, the Allahabad High Court suspended his conviction by order dated 22 July 2019. He sought reinstatement and consequential benefits, contending that suspension of the conviction nullified the basis for his termination. The respondents opposed reinstatement, arguing that the conviction was operative when the termination order was made and that its subsequent suspension did not undo that order.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement after the appellate court suspended his conviction, where the termination of his service had already taken effect.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–15

ii.2. Whether suspension of the conviction retrospectively invalidated the prior termination order.

p. 6 · ¶ 13–15

03Law Applied

The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan, (2003) 12 SCC 432, for the principle that the effect of a stay of conviction operates from the date the conviction is stayed and does not retrospectively undo consequences that took effect before that date.

p. 6 · ¶ 15

The respondents also relied on Government of A.P. v. B. Jagjeevan Rao, MANU/SC/0503/2014, and State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592, the latter concerning the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 over disciplinary decisions; however, the judgment’s dispositive reasoning rests on Gajanan.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10, 15

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 319

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner’s service had been terminated after his conviction, and that the termination had been affirmed on appeal before the criminal appellate court suspended the conviction on 22 July 2019.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12, 15

Applying Gajanan, it held that the suspension operated only from the date of the suspension order. It therefore did not retrospectively remove the effect of the conviction at the time the termination order was made or reverse the termination already in force. The petitioner’s claim that all orders flowing from the conviction should consequently be set aside was rejected.

p. 6 · ¶ 13–15

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement on the basis of the subsequent suspension of his conviction, as that suspension did not operate retrospectively.

p. 6 · ¶ 15

The writ petition was dismissed; any pending interlocutory application was closed, with no order as to costs.

p. 6 · ¶ 16

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF