Quashing the underlying criminal case invalidates disciplinary termination founded solely on its allegations.

The petitioner was engaged as a Special Survey Amin under the Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contract Employment Rules, 2019, and was posted at the Settlement Office, Madhepura

A show-cause notice dated 19 July 2022 was issued alleging that he had been arrested under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021, and that a fine of ₹2,000 had been imposed upon him

The petitioner replied that he had deposited the amount at the instance of the Peskar to conclude the case and had not admitted guilt

The Director, Land Records and Measurement, terminated his contractual employment by order dated 25 April 2023 under Rule 8(4) of the 2019 Rules. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority on 13 November 2023

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Criminal Writ Court, in Cr.W.J.C. No. 2571 of 2025, quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner, while directing strict compliance with the statutory procedure governing pleas of guilt under the Excise Rules

Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contractual employment, based on his alleged arrest and payment of fine in the excise case, could survive after the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings had been quashed?

Whether the orders dated 25 April 2023 and 13 November 2023 were liable to be set aside and the petitioner directed to rejoin his post?

The Court applied the Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contract Employment Rules, 2019, particularly Rule 8(4), under which contractual employment could be terminated for established misconduct

It also considered the Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contract Employment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which continued to govern the petitioner’s contractual service

The Court relied on the effect of the Criminal Writ Court’s order quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings: once the criminal proceeding forming the foundation of the departmental action was quashed, the alleged arrest, criminal accusation and payment of fine could not continue as the basis for the employment termination

The Court further noted the requirement under Rule 18 of the Excise Rules that a plea of guilt must be recorded in the prescribed Form VI-A and the order passed in Form VII

The departmental action was founded exclusively on the allegation that the petitioner had been arrested under the Excise Act and had paid a fine of ₹2,000, which the authorities treated as an admission of guilt

However, the Criminal Writ Court subsequently quashed Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings against him

The High Court held that, as a result, the criminal case, the alleged arrest and the asserted payment of fine ceased to provide a legally sustainable foundation for the show-cause notice and the disciplinary orders

Since the termination order and the appellate order were based on that no-longer-existing foundation, both orders were held to have become unsustainable in law and were set aside

The Court quashed the Director’s termination order dated 25 April 2023 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 13 November 2023

The petitioner was directed to join his post in the concerned department with immediate effect

The judgment does not record a separate adjudication or direction regarding the petitioner’s claim for arrears of honorarium