Introduction
When a government employee is convicted in a criminal case, service rules often permit the employer to dismiss him on the basis of the conviction. If the conviction is later reversed on appeal, a question follows: is the employee entitled to wages for the period he was out of service? The Supreme Court has addressed this in several decisions, generally holding that a subsequent acquittal does not wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction for the period it stood, so that back wages are not automatically payable.
In Dalbeer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 233/2025, 2026:RJ-JP:39128-DB), a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, by order dated 25 September 2026, considered a narrower situation, where the dismissal itself was passed after the employee had already been acquitted. The Bench held that the employee is entitled to back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
Factual Background
The appellant, Dalbeer Singh, was a Constable (Constable No. 6298) serving under the State of Rajasthan. He was convicted by a criminal court for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 15 May 2017 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction and acquitted him by judgment dated 28 June 2017.
Despite the acquittal, the appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 8 August 2017. Realising the mistake that he had already been acquitted, the authorities reinstated him by order dated 16 February 2018. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by way of a writ petition. By order dated 15 May 2023, the learned Single Judge quashed the dismissal order and held the appellant entitled to all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits. The appellant, aggrieved by the denial of back wages, filed a Special Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. Mr. Mahendra Shah, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the appellant, and the State was represented by Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General.
Issue Before the Court
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Inderjeet Singh, framed the question as whether the appellant would be entitled to back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement on 16 February 2018, given that he had already been acquitted on 28 June 2017. The Bench observed that the issue was no longer res integra and stood determined by a line of Supreme Court decisions.
Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon
The Court first referred to Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar ((1996) 11 SCC 603), where an employee dismissed on account of his conviction for murder was reinstated after acquittal. The Supreme Court held that he was entitled to reinstatement, but not to back wages, because the loss of service flowed from his own involvement in a crime and conviction, and not from any disciplinary action later found unsustainable. The Court noted that this principle was followed with approval in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh ((2004) 1 SCC 121).
The Bench also noticed Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (AIR 1994 SC 552), which considered a service regulation denying pay for unauthorised absence and applied the “no work, no pay” principle to a period of suspension for which the employee’s own involvement in misconduct was responsible. It then referred to State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim ((2013) 11 SCC 67), which, considering Ranchhodji, Jaipal Singh and Baldev Singh v. Union of India ((2005) 8 SCC 747), held that a subsequent acquittal, though it obliterates the conviction, does not operate retrospectively to wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction. Finally, the Court referred to Raj Narain v. Union of India ((2019) 5 SCC 809), which relied on Ranchhodji and held the employee entitled to back wages only from the date of acquittal till the date of reinstatement.
Termination After Acquittal Attracts Back Wages
Applying these principles, the Division Bench drew a distinction based on the sequence of dates. The appellant was convicted on 15 May 2017 and acquitted on 28 June 2017, and the Court held that he “could not have been terminated” on 8 August 2017, which was after the acquittal. The Supreme Court decisions deny back wages because the employee was out of service on account of a conviction that was in force. In the present case, the appellant had already been acquitted when the dismissal order was passed, and the Court’s reasoning, in effect, is that the principle protecting the employer for the period of conviction cannot be extended to a dismissal passed after the acquittal.
The Bench accordingly held that, although the principle that acquittal does not retrospectively erase the legal consequences of a conviction continues to apply, the appellant would be entitled to back wages from the date of termination, which was subsequent to his acquittal, till his reinstatement on 16 February 2018. This follows the approach in Raj Narain, where back wages were granted from the date of acquittal. The impugned order of the Single Judge was partly set aside to the extent it denied back wages, and the appeal was allowed.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The decision highlights that the dates in a conviction-based dismissal matter as much as the outcome of the criminal case. The settled position that an acquitted employee is not ordinarily entitled to back wages for the period he was out of service because of a conviction does not extend to a period after the acquittal. Employers who act on a conviction would be well advised to verify the status of the criminal proceedings, including any appeal that may have been decided, before passing or implementing a dismissal order, since an order passed after acquittal may expose them to liability for wages for the period until reinstatement.
From the employee’s side, the ruling suggests that the date of acquittal, the date of the termination order and the date of reinstatement should be carefully recorded and compared, as the entitlement to back wages in such cases turns on that sequence. The ruling is also a decision of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, and the observation in Ranchhodji that each case has to be considered in its own backdrop continues to apply. Parties in similar situations should therefore examine the specific service rules and facts involved.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Dhwani.tandon@amlegals.com or Mayur.punjabi@amlegals.com