Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 7 (RAJ)

Mohan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan

1997-01-03

N.L.TIBREWAL

body1997
Honble TIBREWAL, J. – At the out-set, it is to be lamented that despiteseveral representations, made by the petitioner,respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind on the question whether dismissal of the petitioner is sustainable under the law. The attitude of the State functionaries in shirking from their responsibilities is one of the main reasons of un-wanted inflow of cases in courts. The State Govern- ment and its instrumentalities are the largest litigants in the State and looking to the increasing number of cases in the Courts, it is high time for the State functionaries to act objectively and decide grievances of their employees at-least in accordance with law.Hence, it is essential that as and when any representation is received by them or a notice for demand of justice is served upon them the same should be decided at once and, the aggrieved party should the intimated of the result with reasons.If this practice is adopted, it shall result in minimising cases against the State and its instrumentalities. (2) Be that as it may. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The petitioner, who entered in service of erstwhile Ajmer State as Lower Division Clerk on 11.5.56, was absorbed in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer with effect from 1.11.56 on merger of Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan. On the basis of a report made by respondent No. 2, at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, 12 Charge-sheets were filed against the petitioner in the Court of Addl.Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (East) after completion of investigation Looking to the grave- ness of charges, the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. January 8,1968 during the pendency of criminal cases against him. Out of 12 criminal cases, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, exonerated the petitioner in five cases acquitting him of all the charges.However, in the remaining 7 criminal cases, he was convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for various terms ranging from 1-1/4 years to 1-1/2 years and fine from Rs. 150/- to 200/-. On conviction of the petitioner in 7 criminal cases u/s 409 I.P.C. he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 14.9.78 w.e.f. 29.8.78, the date of order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting him. 150/- to 200/-. On conviction of the petitioner in 7 criminal cases u/s 409 I.P.C. he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 14.9.78 w.e.f. 29.8.78, the date of order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting him. (3) Being aggrieved against his conviction and sentences, the petitioner preferred appeals in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer, from where they were made over to the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer for disposal. The learned Special Judge, accepted all the seven appeals and acquitted the petitioner of the charge levelled against him vide judg- ment dated 27.5.92. Certified copies of the judgment are placed on record as Ex. 3 to Ex. 9. Thus, the petitioner stood acquitted in all the twelve criminal cases which instituted against him. After his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on October 6, 1995 along-with copies of the judgments of the appellate court acquitting him. In the representation he maintained that after his acquittal, he is entitled to be re-instated with all consequential benefits. It appears that no action was taken on this representation. The petitioner,then, sent a reminder on 14.11.95 with copies to the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police and D.I.G. Police, but still no consideration was made on the representation. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash and set aside the suspension order (Ex.1) and dismissal order (Ex.2) with all consequential benefits. (4) In return, as stated earlier, the factual aspect is not disputed by the respondents.The plea taken by them is that acquittal of the petitioner in appeals was by giving benefit of doubt, as such, he is not entitled to get any relief. However, it is admitted that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and his dismissal from service was based on his conviction in criminal cases by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (5) In the back-ground of the aforesaid factual aspect,the question is whether dismissal of the petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law ? However, it is admitted that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and his dismissal from service was based on his conviction in criminal cases by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (5) In the back-ground of the aforesaid factual aspect,the question is whether dismissal of the petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law ? (6) Article 311 (2) of the Constitution provides that no member of Civil Service or a person holding civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of all these charges.Clause(a) of proviso to Article 311(2) however states that this provision shall not apply where a person is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Admittedly, after acquittal of the petitioner from criminal charges, sub-clause(a) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is not applicable.The plea of the respondents that petitioner was acquitted of the charges after giving him benefit of doubt has no re- levance to sustain dismissal of the petitioner. Whatever may be the ground of acquittal,the conviction stands wiped out and sub-clause (a) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has no application. The legal position being clear, learned counsel for the respondents is not in position to depend dismissal of the petitioner after his acquittal in all criminal proceedings. If petitioners representation had been consi- dered objectively, perhaps this un-necessary litigation could have been avoided. (7) Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.The impugned order of suspension as well as the order dismissing the petitioner from service are set aside. The petitioner has attained the age of super-annuation, no direction can be given for his re-instatement but he shall be entitled to get all consequential monetary benefits.Three months time is given to the respondents to make payment of the balance amount of his salary and other allowances. The petitioner shall also be given other retirement benefits treating him to be in continuous service from the date of his dismissal.As the representations made by the petitioner after his acquittal were not considered by respon- dent No.2, the petitioner shall be entitled to get costs of this petition which is quantified Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner shall also be given other retirement benefits treating him to be in continuous service from the date of his dismissal.As the representations made by the petitioner after his acquittal were not considered by respon- dent No.2, the petitioner shall be entitled to get costs of this petition which is quantified Rs. 1000/-. The State Government shall be free to recover this amount from the salary of respondent No. 2 as the petitioner had to approach this Court on account of inaction on his part.