Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 598 (RAJ)

Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III Sanskrit in July, 1999 and posted at the Government Upper Primary School Belochawala, Hanumangarh by the Respondents. 2. It came to the knowledge of the Respondents that a criminal case under Section 302/34 IPC was pending against the Petitioner in which the Petitioner had been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar Camp, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar vide an order dated 30/9/2003. 3. By invoking the power under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 7/6/2008. 4. The Petitioner challenged the conviction by filing a D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1444/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. This Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 11/11/2014 convicted the Petitioner under Section 325/34 of the IPC and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to deal with the conviction. 5. The Juvenile Justice Board after due process of law held that the petitioner was guilty under Section 325/34 IPC but being the first offence, benefit was given under Section 15(D) and 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, while holding that the conviction shall not be considered as a disqualification for the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has sought reinstatement by quashing of the order dated 7/6/2008. 7. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply stating that a proper enquiry in accordance with procedure laid down under the CCA Rules, 1958 was conducted by the Respondents before passing the punitive order dated 7/6/2008. Once the parameters laid down In the CCA Rules, 1958 had been adhered to the Respondents, It was not open for the Petitioner to seek any interference in the matter. 8. It was also stated in the reply that the release of the Petitioner by the Juvenile Justice Board, shall not be a disqualification but that does not mean that it looses the prerogative of the Respondents in terminating the services on account of the conduct of the Petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Satyapal Chandoliya, has pointed put the legislative intention of Rule 19 in which the relevant provision protects a juvenile against a future disqualification which is attached to a conviction. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Satyapal Chandoliya, has pointed put the legislative intention of Rule 19 in which the relevant provision protects a juvenile against a future disqualification which is attached to a conviction. As per the counsel for the Petitioner, once the disqualification attached to the conviction is removed, then the Respondents shall have to revisit the powers exercised by them under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the society owes a duty to rehabilitate a juvenile and, therefore, a special legislation has been enacted with the purpose of giving a chance to such people to come into the main stream for an act committed at the time of being juvenile. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondents Shri B.K. Sharma, Addl Government Counsel referred to the judgment of Union of India and Another v. Bihari Lal Sidhana in Civil Appeal No. 2668/97 [reported in 1997(4) SCC 385 ] whereby the Apex Court has held that the acquittal in the criminal case would not entitle for an automatic reinstatement and it would be open for the competent authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon the judgment of Union of India and Ors. v. Bakshi Ram [reported in AIR 1990 SC 987 ] whereby Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958) was dealt with and the Hon'ble Apex Court had said that such provision would not lead to an entitlement of automatic reinstatement. 13. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion that the Juvenile Justice Act and Probation of Offenders Act are two different laws meant for sympathy and protection towards juveniles and the juvenile law is quite different from the general law of probation. Therefore, the protection of Section 19 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has to remain in force 'so as to strengthen legislative intention of putting the protective layer of provisions for juveniles. 14. Therefore, the protection of Section 19 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has to remain in force 'so as to strengthen legislative intention of putting the protective layer of provisions for juveniles. 14. The Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have heavily relied upon the conviction of the Petitioner and once such conviction is no more sustained due to the benefit of Act of 2000, then the order of the disciplinary authority needed to be revisited by the Respondents. 15. In light of the aforementioned discussions this Writ Petition is allowed and order dated 7/6/2008 is quashed and set aside with a complete liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [reported in 2016(8) SCC 471 ] and Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 16. The benefits of quashing of the order dated 7/6/2008 shall accrue to the Petitioner only after a decision is taken by the Respondents pertaining to the revisiting of disciplinary proceedings. If any decision is taken by the Respondents regarding enquiry, then the same shall have to be completed within a period of three months from passing of this order.