Woman arrested under Section 420 was fired from govt job; won job back after 23 years; Rajasthan HC slams govt for ignoring her acquittal

Smt Berwa was employed by the Rajasthan Government Medical and Health department in Bhilwara starting from July 7, 2000. While working in that department, an FIR No.302/2002 was filed (against her) on May 31, 2002 at Bhilwara for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, and 120-B Indian Penal Code, which allegedly stemmed from a family dispute.

Following this, Smt Berwa was arrested on July 18, 2002 and brought before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, where she was remanded to judicial custody. She was later released on bail on July 26, 2002.

After getting out on bail, she reported for work on July 27, 2002, but the department denied her permission to resume her duties. Eventually, her services were terminated with effect from July 18, 2002 through an order dated October 17, 2002, on the ground that she had remained in judicial custody from July 18, 2002 to July 25, 2002, in connection with the criminal case.


Unhappy by her termination, Smt Berwa raised an industrial dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Bhilwara. Whule this was ongoing, she was acquitted of all charges by the competent criminal court through a judgment dated December 3, 2011.

The Labour Court issued an award on August 8, 2005, which quashed the termination order and mandated her reinstatement under the same contractual terms that were in place before her termination.

The Rajasthan government decided to appeal against the labour court order. A single bench judge of Rajasthan High Court via an order dated March 14, 2024 upheld the findings of the Labour Court but modified the relief on back wages, while also directing that she receive notional benefits.

Dissatisfied with the Single Judge ruling, the Rajasthan government filed a special appeal to a larger bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, the Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan State, submitted before the Rajasthan High Court that the termination order dated October 17, 2002 passed against respondent No.1 (Smt. Berwa) was quashed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara through an award dated August 8, 2005. He further submitted that the writ petition preferred by the Rajasthan State against the said award came to be disposed of by the Single Judge order dated March 14, 2024.

Also read: Income tax employee got 1-year jail as CBI caught him taking Rs 600 bribe for Rs 5,826 tax refund; Patna HC orders him to surrender to serve jail term

The Additional Advocate General contended that the entire factual matrix of the case revolved around the FIR registered against the respondent (Smt Berwa), which had led to her termination, and that she was subsequently acquitted by the competent criminal court on December 3, 2011. He, however, urged that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer any right of reinstatement or entitle an employee to service benefits, unless the departmental termination is found to be perverse or unsupported by law.

Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari, the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 (Smt Berwa), supported the impugned order. He submitted that both the Labour Court and the Single Judge bench have rendered concurrent findings after detailed consideration of the material on record and the principles of natural justice. He argued that since the termination was based solely on the pendency of a criminal case, and the respondent (Smt Berwa) stands acquitted, the very basis of the termination no longer existed.

Maheshwari further argued that there is no other independent material on record to sustain the termination order and that the findings recorded by the Single Judge bench and the Labour Court are strictly in accordance with law, and called for no interference in the appellate jurisdiction.

Also read: Husband gets six months’ jail in 498A case; Kerala HC says abuse behind closed doors needs no independent witnesses

Why did she win the case?

Apurva Agrawal, Founder, Universal Legal, Mumbai, said to ET Wealth Online: "She won the case because the High Court saw a simple flaw in the employer’s action. Her services were terminated only because a criminal case was pending against her."

There was no separate inquiry into her conduct, no finding that she had violated service rules, and no independent reason recorded for removing her from service. The termination was entirely built on the assumption that the criminal case itself justified her removal.

According to Agrawal, when the criminal court later acquitted her, that assumption no longer held. The High Court reasoned that if an action is taken on a specific ground, and that ground disappears, the action cannot continue to stand.

Agrawal says: "In plain terms, once she was cleared by the court, the reason for keeping her out of service vanished. Allowing the termination to continue after acquittal would have been unfair and arbitrary."

Agrawal says that the precedent that this judgment sets is a balanced one.

Agrawal says: "It sends a clear message that employees cannot be removed mechanically just because a criminal case is pending, and that an acquittal has real consequences in service matters."

Agrawal says that at the same time, the Court was careful not to say that every acquittal guarantees reinstatement. Employers can still act where there is independent misconduct, a proper disciplinary inquiry, or serious service-related issues.

Agrawal says: "Ultimately, the ruling pushes employers to rely on facts and due process, not fear or assumptions."

Rajasthan High Court judgement

Rajasthan High Court in its judgement dated November 6, 2025 said that upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual matrix of the case, they find no reason to take a view different from that of the Labour Court and the Single Judge.

The Rajasthan High Court said:

• The very foundation of the termination order dated October 17, 2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1 (Smt Berwa).
• Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated December 3, 2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist.
• The concurrent findings recorded by both the forums below are well reasoned, supported by the material on record, and suffer from no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
• Consequently, this court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
• Accordingly, the special appeal stands dismissed.