Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 183 (MP)

B. D. Pathak v. M. P. S. R. T. C.

2005-02-08

ARUN MISHRA

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER was convicted for an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 500/ -. As per order (P-6), dated 24-8-1998 services of the petitioner were dispensed with without any further enquiry and giving opportunity of defence. The question which is agitated by the petitioner that opportunity of hearing and notice ought to have been given. Enquiry should have been conducted. ( 2. ) THE above question stands answered against the petition by the Full Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M. P. and one Anr. , 2004 (4) M. P. H. T. 343 : 2005 (1) MPJR 55, wherein the Full Bench presided by Honble the Chief Justice laid down that in such cases of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended, no enquiry is necessary to be conducted as conviction is for corruption case and involves moral turpitude, punishment of dismissal was held not to be excessive and writ petition was dismissed. ( 3. ) IN view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner was not entitled for hearing. No enquiry was necessary. Full Bench of this Court has overruled the earlier decision of Division Bench of this Court in Tikaram Windwar v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, 1978 MPLJ 57 , in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the aforesaid decision, thus :- "11. We accordingly overrule the decisions of the Division Bench in Tikaram, 1978 MPLJ 57 and Sheetal Kumar Bandi, 2003 (2) MPLJ 485 , in so far as they hold that the delinquent employee should be given a notice giving an opportunity to put forth his views as to the penalty proposed to be imposed. 12. We accordingly overrule the decisions of the Division Bench in Tikaram, 1978 MPLJ 57 and Sheetal Kumar Bandi, 2003 (2) MPLJ 485 , in so far as they hold that the delinquent employee should be given a notice giving an opportunity to put forth his views as to the penalty proposed to be imposed. 12. The second premises in Sheetal Kumar Bandi that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Court can examine whether there was consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty and correct the penalty if it is excessive, is in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Challappan, Shankar Dass, Tulsiram Patel and Sunil Kumar Sarkar , AIR1975 SC 2216 , 1975 Lablc1598 , (1976 )I LLJ68 SC , (1976 )3 SCC190 , [1976 ]1 SCR783 , 1975 (2 )SLJ587 (SC ) and. , AIR2001 SC 1092 , RLW2001 (2 )SC 190 , 2001 (2 )SCALE286 , (2001 )3 SCC414 , 2001 (2 )UJ976 (SC ). If the conviction is for any minor offence which does not involve any moral turpitude, a punishment or removal or dismissal from service will certainly be excessive. But where the conviction is on the ground of corruption, as in this case, there can be no two views that imposition of punishment by way of dismissal is just and proper and not excessive. " ( 4. ) I find that the question stand answered within the light of the decision quoted above. I find no merit in this petition. Same is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred in this petition.