
The Supreme Court has held that a public employer cannot discharge an employee merely because a criminal case is pending against him, especially when the employee was not allowed to defend himself.…
The Supreme Court has held that a public employer cannot discharge an employee merely because a criminal case is pending against him, especially when the employee was not allowed to defend himself. The court set aside the discharge of a Punjab police constable who was removed in 2003 solely due to a pending FIR, before any conviction.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu noted the constable had served over a decade and found no law authorising termination only on the ground of a pending case. However, the court declined to order reinstatement after more than two decades and instead directed the state to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation within three months under Article 142.
The court also clarified that release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act does not erase the conviction, and disciplinary proceedings based on the employee's conduct leading to conviction can still proceed. In this case, since the constable was not convicted at the time of discharge, the removal was illegal.
The ruling reinforces a basic procedural safeguard: a public servant cannot be sacked for merely being accused. The distinction matters because thousands of government employees face criminal trials, and automatic discharge would undermine the presumption of innocence. The real impact here is financial: the constable lost two decades of salary and seniority, and the state's liability is limited to Rs 5 lakh. Watch for future cases where employees cite this judgment to challenge dismissals ordered during the pendency of criminal proceedings, especially in state police forces.
Source: livelaw.in
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.