Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court of India recently ruled that there is no law allowing a public employer to fire or remove an employee who has been with the company for over 10 years just because there is a pending criminal case against him. On this ground, the Supreme Court gave relief to a dismissed employee stating that the act of termination of service in this case is not justifiable.
The article gives full details about the circumstances that led to the employee’s dismissal and his eventual win in the Supreme Court after a lengthy 14-year legal battle through various courts. (Case no: 2026 INSC 798).
What were the circumstances behind the employee’s dismissal?
Mr Singh (a public sector employee) joined the service on October 17, 1991 an was posted at Batala district in Punjab, India. He continued the service without any issue until in August 27, 2002 he got selected for a higher post in Patiala, Punjab, India. Three days later on August 30, 2002, he reported to the Patiala office but faced challenges. The Patiala office denied his joining on the ground that there were pending criminal cases against him.
This criminal case, which his employer referred to,dates back to 2001 when Singh was named in FIR No. 159 filed on July 20, 2001 under Sections 324/326/34, Indian Penal Code, 186010 at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot.
After the FIR was registered, the magistrate conducted a trial and found him guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of two and three years under two Sections (324 and 326) on April 21, 2006.
Feeling wronged , Mr Singh filed an appeal before the additional sessions judge. On August 27, 2007, the additional sessions judge maintained his Section 324 conviction, but set aside the Section 326 conviction and released him on probation. Crucially, the judge directed that the conviction “shall not affect his service career.”
In 2011, the trial court ordered his reinstatement but held that he would not get wages for the period between his dismissal and reinstatement. However, in 2014 the appellate court set aside the Trial Court's decree and dismissed Singh's case and in 2016 the high court dismissed his appeal, thereby leaving the appellate court's decision against him intact.
So he filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On August 4, 2026, Singh had a partial victory when the court acknowledged that his termination from service was wrong. The Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure fairness and ordered the employer to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Singh within three months.
The Supreme Court also noted that while a larger amount could have been awarded, they lacked crucial information and Singh also bore some responsibility for that.
Moreover, due to past bad legal advice or whatever reason, Singh’s written statement and plaint were poorly constructed, missing key details that could have strengthened his case. He also failed to file an application to amend his statement or plaint or give additional evidence.
Despite these issues, the Supreme Court firmly stated that Singh was treated unfairly, being dismissed solely for an ongoing criminal case. Ultimately, the court delivered justice to him with whatever information they had.
Keep reading to know how and why Singh won the case. Advocates Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta,Rakshit Rathi, Krishna Kumar, Nandani Gupta, AOR Mrs. Vipin Gupta represented him before the Supreme Court.
Why the employee won the case?
Jeevan Ballav Panda, Partner at Khaitan & Co said to ET Wealth Online: "At the outset it needs to be understood that the judgment has been passed in the context of public employment. It is in this context that the Supreme Court has observed that no law authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee who has served for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case."
According to Panda, the same principle may not automatically apply to a private employer where the threshold may be much lower and the decision whether or not to dismiss an employee even on the ground of pendency of a criminal case is entirely the employer’s prerogative and to its subjective satisfaction.
In fact, standard employment verification clauses in employment contract of private employers usually reserve such right of termination (without notice or payment in lieu thereof) as per its subjective satisfaction. Panda therefore says that the the applicability may differ depending on whether the employment is public or private."
In the present case, the employee partially succeeded on a narrow ground. He was discharged from service on January 14, 2003 solely because a criminal case was then pending against him. There was no conviction at that stage, and he was neither put on notice nor heard before the order was passed and as such, principles of natural justice were not followed.
According to Panda, the Supreme Court found no law that authorises a public employer to dismiss or remove an employee only on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. SC also held that his later conviction in 2006 could not cure the discharge order that was already illegal when it was made.
Panda says: "At the same time, it is pertinent to note that the Court rejected the argument that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shields an employee’s service career, holding that release on probation does not extinguish the conviction itself."
As regards to the relief granted, the Supreme Court did not grant reinstatement as the nature of original proceedings was a civil suit (and not a writ petition) with limited powers as compared to the Constitutional powers under writ jurisdiction. According to Panda, the discharge order was never challenged by the employee nor any attempt made to amend the plaint or lead any additional evidence, and a decree of reinstatement was in any event beyond the power of a civil court under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The only relief the employee could have claimed or been awarded was damages. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the suit, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and only awarded compensation of Rs 5,00,000, payable within three months and disposed off the civil appeal accordingly.”
Supreme Court order
A short summary of the Supreme Court judgement:
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, told Singh that his conviction would not affect his job
The main thrust of Singh’s Advocate Mr. Gupta’s submission rested on the observation of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, that the conviction under Section 324, IPC shall not affect Singh’s service career. According to Gupta, the decision having attained finality, nothing including the conviction prevented Singh’s employers from reinstating him in service.
The Supreme Court said that the Sessions Judge seems to have drawn inspiration from the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court in Jaswant Singh v. The State of Punjab ((1989) 2 RCR (Cri) 162 = 1989 SCC OnLine P&H 290). However, this judgment was contrary to several earlier Supreme Court judgments.
The Supreme Court said that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot come to the rescue of a convict-employee released on probation insofar as affectation of his service career is concerned.
Section 12 cannot help Singh’s case
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, deals with disqualification resulting from conviction.
The Supreme said that as per their understanding of Section 12, the position is clear that it has two components, the second explaining the first:
(i) a convict released on probation under Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer any disqualification even though a law may provide for his disqualification; but
(ii) the disqualification has to be one attaching to such conviction for the offence concerned under that law.
The Supreme Court said that the words “shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law” are important. The same cannot be stretched to mean that release on probation would operate as a bar to terminate the service of a convict if he is in public employment and to whom the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution apply.
The Supreme Court said: “Release on probation does not obliterate the conviction. The primary object of releasing a convict on probation is his reformation and rehabilitation as a useful and self-reliant member of society without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of prison life.”
However, on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge notwithstanding release on probation, the holder of a civil post under the State can be proceeded against in view of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 and be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank without any enquiry.
The Supreme Court said that if dismissed or removed, such termination of service because of a conviction could be seen as one attaching to a conviction in view of the second proviso referred to above.
The Supreme Court said: “However, the word “law” used in Section 12 refers to a general or special law that the Constitution empowers the Parliament/Legislatures to enact and it (Section 12) cannot and does not take within its sweep the Constitution itself to which it owes its origin.”
Though the words “any disqualification” by themselves could perhaps be seen as wide enough to cover a case even of termination of service, nonetheless, the Supreme Court said that the scope of these words requires interpretation in the context of the non-obstante clause which does not exclude operation of a constitutional provision.
The Supreme Court said that they are not too certain of Singh’s nature of appointment, so they refrained from rejecting the argument of Mr. Gupta on this ground but for all the precedents noted above, the Supreme Court said that they hold that Section 12 is incapable of the construction sought to be put upon it by Mr. Gupta to persuade the court to hold it in Singh’s favour.
Singh drafted his complaint wrongly and did not challenge the dismissal order itself
The Supreme Court said that this appeal has originated from a suit and not a writ petition. Powers of the civil court are not as wide as the powers of a writ court; hence, Singh must be held to be bound by the rules of procedure meaning thereby the CPC.
The Supreme Court said that the plaint and the written statement as well as the evidence are not on record and so their narration of facts is sourced from the judgments of the courts below. There is no reference to the order of appointment of the appellant anywhere in any of the three judgments.
So because of the badly written plaint and written statements, the Supreme Court could not ascertain the precise nature of Singh’s appointment. Moreover, Singh never challenged his discharge order but claimed relief of his service reinstatement.
Moreover, Singh did not ask the court to amend his plaint or write an application to the court for submitting additional evidence. Thus the Supreme Court said that they have no other option but to limit their scrutiny to the materials on record.
However, despite all these shortcomings, the Supreme Court said that they can hold without any doubt that Singh was extended a raw deal by being discharged from service merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.
The Supreme Court said that the fact of Singh’s discharge on the stated ground is admitted by his employer.
Moreover, the fact that Singh got convicted under Section 324 of IPC cannot cure the illegality vitiating the order of discharge when it was made.
The Supreme Court said: “It is possible, because of ill-advice, the frame of the suit was not proper.”
The Supreme Court said: “Appellant (Singh) did not challenge the order of discharge dated January 14, 2003. Even the prayers were defective. Relief of reinstatement in service could not have been granted by the civil court in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is only damages that the appellant (Singh) could have claimed and been awarded. Mr. Gupta did not dispute such a position.”
But, can or should the resultant deficiencies noticed above completely absolve the respondents of consequences arising from such an illegal and arbitrary act? The Supreme Court said that the answer has to be in the negative.
Thus on these grounds the Supreme Court awarded Singh Rs 5 lakh compensation.
