Employee wins Rs 5L over wrong termination

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently declared that public employers cannot terminate the service of an employee who has worked for over 10 years solely because of an ongoing criminal case against him. The decision was made in favor of Mr. Singh, a public sector employee, who had been dismissed from his position in 2003 due to a pending criminal case.

Mr. Singh joined the service on October 17, 1991, and worked without issues until August 27, 2002, when he was transferred to Patiala, Punjab, India. Three days later, he reported to the office but faced challenges as the Patiala office denied his joining, citing pending criminal cases against him. Mr. Singh was arrested in July 2001 under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to imprisonment in April 2006.

Feeling wronged, Mr. Singh appealed the decision, and in 2007, the additional sessions judge maintained his conviction for Section 324 but set aside his conviction for Section 326, releasing him on probation. In 2011, the trial court ordered his reinstatement, but held that he would not receive wages for the period between his dismissal and reinstatement.

However, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decree in 2014, and the high court dismissed Mr. Singh's appeal in 2016, leaving the appellate court's decision against him intact.

Finally, in 2026, Mr. Singh filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which acknowledged that his termination from service was unjust. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, ordered the employer to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Mr. Singh within three months. The court also stated that while a larger amount could have been awarded, they lacked crucial information and that Mr. Singh also bore some responsibility for the lack of clarity in his case.

The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted that public employers cannot dismiss or remove an employee based solely on the pending criminal case, and that the employee's service career should not be affected in such circumstances.