Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 254 (MP)

Neeraj v. State of M. P.

2021-02-26

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- "1. That, since the respondent Jardan Singh is convicted or involve in the heinous offence twice than his service deserves to be terminated therefore, the respondent be directed to terminate their service by following the process provided under the rule. 2. That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded. 3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner is widow lady of young age 28 years. Her husband Balister Singh has been killed by the respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh alongwith other culprits. The matter was reported to concerning Police Station where a Crime No. 74/2020 under Section 302, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC has been registered against the respondent No. 4 and other culprits. Apart from, respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh was also convicted under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 506 Part-2 of IPC by the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, Morena in Session Trial No. 205/2014 vide judgment dated 31.08.2016 and was punished to one year, six months and six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulation. Despite of such conviction and involvement in heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC, he is retained in government service while under the provision of Civil Service Classification Rules, the convicted person is not eligible for government service. The matter was reported by the petitioner to higher authorities for suspension/termination of service but the same has not been given effect too. The registration of FIR against the respondent No. 4 at Crime No. 74/2020 dated 04.07.2020 is marked as Annexure P/2. The respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh has been convicted by the Competent Court than it is the duty of Jardan Singh to inform such conviction to their employees but he suppressed this fact, therefore, his service deserves to be terminated on account of suppression of such material fact and his conviction. The respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh has been convicted by the Competent Court than it is the duty of Jardan Singh to inform such conviction to their employees but he suppressed this fact, therefore, his service deserves to be terminated on account of suppression of such material fact and his conviction. Once the government servant is in custody more than 24 hours in any criminal offence than he is liable to be suspended but such custody period has not been informed by the respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh to their employee, which should disqualify him for regular service. At present, Jardan Singh is in custody. His bail application has rejected by the Session Court, therefore, he is not entitled for government service as per Civil Service Classification Control Rules. The petitioner being a widow of young age who has lost her husband at the earlier age of life, therefore, she is victim and entitled for filing this writ petition for suspension/termination of the service of Jardan Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for that since the respondent Jardan Singh is convicted or involved in the heinous offence twice than his service deserves to be terminated by following the process provided under the Service Rules. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel for the State submits that in respect to above reliefs, respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh was convicted in S.T.N. 205/2014, Morena vide judgment dated 31.08.2016 by the Court of the Second ASJ, Joura, District Morena. The respondent No. 4 was convicted under Section 324 IPC with sentence of one years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. It is clear that the sentence under graver offence of Section 324 IPC has been awarded one year RI with Rs. 1000/-. The co-accused Raghunath had filed criminal appeal before the Hon'ble High Court which was registered Criminal Appeal No. 821/2016 against the judgment Annexure P/l passed by the Session Court, Morena, which is still pending. The departmental action is under contemplation against respondent No. 6 and the suitable departmental action shall be taken against the respondent No. 6 after complying with procedure prescribed under Rules 1966 and after given reasonable effective opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6 in compliance of principal of natural justice. The departmental punishment cannot be inflicted in violation of Rules, 1966 and rules will have to be followed before imposing any penalty. The departmental punishment cannot be inflicted in violation of Rules, 1966 and rules will have to be followed before imposing any penalty. The instant writ petition claiming relief of termination of service without conviction under Section 302 of IPC is premature and deserves to be dismissed at this stage. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and State counsel has prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that departmental proceedings are pending against the respondent No. 4 Jardan Singh, and not being concluded till date, the concerning authorities are directed to conclude the departmental inquiry within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 8. It is made clear that the Court has not commented upon the merits of the case. Certified copy as per the rules.