Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 790 (MP)

Swamideen Saket v. State of M. P.

2018-09-12

NANDITA DUBEY

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the Orders dated 16.5.2017 and 18.5.2017 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) passed by Regional Director, Health Services, Government of M.P., Rewa and Chief Medical and Health Officer, Satna, respectively. 3. The core issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are justified in terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of Circular dated 8.2.1999 on account of his conviction under sections 323,325 read with section 34 of the IPC. 4. The petitioner, a Junior Malaria Inspector (“JMI”) at Community Health Centre, Tahsil-Majhgavan, District-Satna stands convicted for offence punishable under sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 700/- respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated 27th August, 2014 along with other persons. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 2646/2014 in this Court and by order dated 10.11.2014, only the awarded sentence of fine amount was suspended. On account of his conviction by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 5. The contention of Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders impugned are unsustainable in law as the same are passed without holding a preliminary enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not convicted for any heinous offence nor the offence alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude, hence, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Suprme Court in State of M.P. and others v. Hazarilal [ (2008) 3 SCC 273 ] and a single Bench decision of this Court in Mahima Chand Gangwar v. State of M.P. and others [ 2016 (2) MPLJ 403 ]. 6. Per contra, Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State has submitted that M.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 are applicable to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was suspended earlier as he remained in jail for more than 48 hours on account of a criminal case registered against him. 6. Per contra, Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State has submitted that M.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 are applicable to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was suspended earlier as he remained in jail for more than 48 hours on account of a criminal case registered against him. Subsequently, he was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced with imprisonment up to rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 700/- respectively with default stipulations. It is stated that in view of the circular of the State Government dated 8.2.1999, the petitioner was dismissed from the service. Learned Panel Lawyer has drawn attention of this Court to the said circular. It is urged that clause 2 (a) of the circular clearly contemplates penalty of dismissal from service without affording opportunity of hearing or conducting any departmental enquiry as required under Rule 19 read with Rule 14 of Rules of 1966 as well as under Article 311 (2)(a) of the Constitution of India, where the conviction is under an offence involving moral turpitude. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted under section 325/34 of IPC which clearly falls within the purview of offence involving moral turpitude. The case of State of M.P. and others v. Hazarilal (supra), relates to termination of employee on conviction under section 323 of IPC which does not involve any moral turpitude. Hence, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Basant Soni v. State of M.P. and others (WP No. 12156/2017) decided on 26.10.2017 has dealt with similar issue and held as under : “4. In the case in hand, the relevant rule applicable to the facts of the present case is rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1966.Rule 19 reads as under : “19. Special Procedure in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18 : (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.” 5. Provisions akin to said rule 19 were considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 . Provisions akin to said rule 19 were considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 . The majority view did not agree with the interpretation put on the word “consider” in T.R. Challappan's case reported in AIR 1975 SC 2216 and the majority view was of the opinion that the expression 'consider' does not contemplate holding of any inquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent who is found guilty on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The same view has been reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2004(4) M.P.L.J. 555 . 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel (supra), and the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), we hold that it is not necessary to give notice, giving an opportunity of hearing to such person or holding any inquiry. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the contention and the petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed summarily. 9. Thus, in view of the law laid down as aforesaid in Basant Soni v. State of M.P. and others (supra), it was not necessary for the respondents to give notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. 10. In view of aforestated, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.