Pritam Rathore Vs Director General, Home Guard Fire and Emergency Services

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:33505

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 174 of 2023

¶7

1 - Pritam Rathore Age 41 Year, (Terminated Home Guard / Sainik) S/o Shri D.P. Rathore, R/o Village / Post Office Lahanga, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Director General, Home Guard Fire And Emergency Services, Sector 19 Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Divisional Commandant, Home Guard, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Commandant, District Home Guards And District Firefighter Office, Home Guard, Korba Division Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

16/07/2025

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

2

¶21

“10:1 that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case.

¶22

10:2. that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the respondents to quash the order of Respondent No. 3 as Suspension Order No. 477/Trann/2022 dated 30.2.2022 (Ann.P/1) and Termination Order No./479/Trann./2022 Korba dated 30.3.2022 (Ann.-P/2). Further, may be directed to decide the representation dated 31.5.2022 and 18.11.2022 (Ann.-P/3) at the earliest.

¶23

10:3. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to give the petitioner full salary of the period of suspension and termination.

¶24

10:4. that, the respondents may kindly be directed that they should not penalize the petitioner for the false allegation and they may be directed to compensate the petitioner for his false prosecution.

¶25

10:5. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.”

¶26

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed to the

¶27

post of Sainik in Home Guards Janjgir, No. 266, vide order dated

¶28

18.04.2006, and during his tenure, his work remained appreciable and unblemished as he was a hardworking, wellbehaved, and punctual employee of the department. The petitioner was posted at Korba, where a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by a woman at Police Station- Balco on 28.03.2022 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to his arrest on 29.03.2022. The respondent No. 3 has issued a suspension order with effect from 29.03.2022. Thereafter, an order of termination was passed against the

¶29

3

¶30

petitioner on 30.03.2022. The petitioner made several representations to the respondent authority, but none were considered. The petitioner also filed M.Cr.C. No. 3796/2022 (Pritam Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and was granted bail on 11.05.2022. The respondents without issuing any charge sheet or affording an opportunity of hearing, directly terminated the petitioner’s service, which reflects a biased and arbitrary action on their part.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would respectfully submit that the petitioner’s principal grievance stands substantially redressed in as much as the departmental proceedings initiated against him have culminated in his complete exoneration/acquittal from all charges levelled. He further submits that once the foundation for the suspension has disappeared, the continuation of any adverse civil consequence flowing from that suspension is legally unsustainable. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the suspension period be regularised as duty for all purposes, and the petitioner be extended the consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the applicable service rules (including full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, after adjusting any subsistence allowance already drawn). He further submits that denial or withholding of these consequential benefits, despite the petitioner’s clean exoneration, would amount to a continuing

¶32

4

¶33

financial penalisation without authority of law. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release all pending monetary dues for the suspension period within a time-bound frame, together with interest as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the same.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the charges leveled against the petitioner could not be substantiated, and consequently, he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the petitioner was duly reinstated in service after his acquittal, which reflects the acknowledgment by the department of his innocence and the restoration of his employment status. However, despite such reinstatement, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of back wages for the period during which he was kept out of service, which appears to be unjust and inequitable, particularly when the suspension and the criminal proceedings were not attributable to any proven misconduct on his part. In the absence of any adverse finding and keeping in view the principle that an employee, who has

¶37

5

¶38

been fully exonerated, should not suffer financial loss for no fault of his own, the claim of the petitioner for back wages deserves due consideration in the interest of justice, fairness, and equity.

¶39

The petitioner is at liberty to approach before the concerned authority while filing an appropriate application for grant of back wages and in turn the authorities are directed to decide his representation, in respect of his service dues and back wages in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the receipt of representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any thing on merits of the case.

¶40

With this observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Raghu Jat

Pritam Rathore v. Director General, Home Guard Fire and Emergency Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Rathore v. Director General, Home Guard Fire and Emergency Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pitamber Das

Smt. Sugantin Bai Vs Lokesh Das Manikpuri

Smt. Shringarkali Agrawal Vs Jeevrakhan Sahu

Suresh Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjani Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Upasana Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh