Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 63 (UTT)

RAM SEWAK v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-03-03

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 7 /13(1)-D read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-year and to pay fine of ‘ 10,000/- vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2013. After conviction order was passed by the competent court, services of the petitioner were terminated by respondents no. 4 and 5 vide impugned order dated 03.01.2014. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present petition. 2. Mr. M. S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of impugned termination order, neither any show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was ever initiated against the petitioner and the impugned termination order was passed ex parte merely because petitioner was convicted by the trial court. He further contends that against the conviction order, a criminal appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner before this Court, which is pending disposal. In the criminal appeal, so filed, sentence has already been suspended and petitioner was released on bail. 3. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5, fairly admits that impugned order dated 03.01.2014 was passed ex parte. Since impugned order was passed ex parte without there being any departmental inquiry or without issuing any show cause notice and moreover, as per Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, appeal has already been filed against the conviction of the petitioner before this Court wherein sentence awarded by the trial court has already been suspended and petitioner was released on bail, therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. 4. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.01.2014 is hereby set aside. However, respondents no. 4 and 5 shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, if they so desire, in accordance with law and may pass order afresh. 5. CLMA No. 1590 of 2014 also stands disposed of.