Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 82 (JK)

State of J&K & Ors. v. Mohd. Iqbal

2012-03-02

J.P.SINGH, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2012
J. P. Singh, J;— The respondent-Mohd. Iqbal, a Selection Grade Constable in the Police Department of the State Government was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu under Section 304-II RPC. Rather than awarding punishment, the learned Sessions Judge, directed his release on execution of personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each. He had, however, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Samia Bibi, the widow of the victim. Treating his conviction by the Criminal Court as disqualification, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Doda-Udhampur Range Batote, directed his dismissal from service with immediate effect vide Order No. 417 of 2000 dated 30th December, 2000. Examining the respondent s plea against his dismissal pursuant to his conviction, a learned Single Judge of this Court, found the dismissal bad in law and accordingly quashed it vide Judgment dated 27.08.2002, however, reserving liberty with the State Government to hold enquiry and pass fresh orders. The State is in Appeal against the Writ Court Judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. Referring to Sushil Kumar Singhal versus Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, reported as (2010) 8 SCC, 573, Mr. Basotra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State submitted that having been convicted under Section 304-II RPC, the respondent had incurred disqualification and his dismissal from service was, therefore, justified under Police Rules and the Writ Court was not right in interferring with the dismissal order. We find no merit in the learned State counsel s submission, for, dismissal of an enrolled Police Officer was permissible in terms of Rule 338 of the Police Rules, reference whereto was made by the learned State counsel to support the respondent s dismissal, if the Officer had been sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment for and exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe. The Rule provides discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to either dismiss the Officer or deal with him otherwise, in case the punishment of the Criminal Court was of fine or simple imprisonment or both or rigorous imprisonment not exceeding one month. The Criminal Court having considered it fit not to award any punishment to the respondent, the provisions of Rule 338 of the Police Rules would not have any play in the facts and circumstances of the case and the respondent s dismissal may not, therefore, be justified. The Criminal Court having considered it fit not to award any punishment to the respondent, the provisions of Rule 338 of the Police Rules would not have any play in the facts and circumstances of the case and the respondent s dismissal may not, therefore, be justified. This apart, the respondent s conviction simpliciter without any thing more, would not result in his automatic dismissal or removal from service. The respondent s removal from service merely on the basis of his conviction by the Criminal Court that had not passed any order of sentence, was, therefore, unjustified in view of the law laid down by a three Judge Bench Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported as The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway and another versus T.R. Challappan, AIR 1975 SC, 2216. The Judgment referred to by the learned State counsel does not take a view contrary to the three Judge Bench Decision of the Supreme Court and provides that conviction of an employee would permit the Disciplinary Authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the employee or take appropriate steps for dismissal/removal only on the basis of his conviction. It does not, as contended by the learned State counsel, rule that conviction results in automatic dismissal from service. For all what has been said above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby respondent s removal from service was quashed leaving the Staterespondents free to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against him pursuant to his conviction. The State Appeal is, therefore, dismissed as without merit.