Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Rajasthan vs Jeth Mal (D) Thr. Lr. Smt Sushila Devi on 16 August, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.6355 of 2019
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22989 of 2018)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
JETH MAL (D) THR. LR. SMT SUSHILA DEVI Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The disciplinary action was proceeded against the respondent (delinquent official since deceased represented by his Legal heir/wife) in view of his conviction under Section 304(B) read with Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings resulted in punishment of termination of service.
3. In subsequent appeal proceedings, conviction Signature Not Verified was Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2019.08.21 sustained only under Section 498(A) of the 16:50:37 IST Reason:
Indian Penal Code.2
4. The endeavour of the respondent to reopen the issue of termination of service partly succeeded in terms of the order of learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2017 predicated on reasoning that since the punishment of termination of service was based on conviction for both the offences, that aspect needed to be revisited. Instead of remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, the learned Single Judge decided to take on this task himself and directed that consequential benefits would be paid to him by reduction of the punishment of termination of service and its substitution by the punishment of compulsory retirement.
5. The aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Judge has been sustained by the Division Bench in terms of the impugned order dated 24.11.2017.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3
7. In our view, the impugned order amounts to a misplaced sympathy for the respondent who has undisputedly suffered a conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The reasoning seems to be as if this conviction is not enough to visit the delinquent official with the punishment of termination of service and that punishment ought to be reduced. It appears that what has weighed is also the fact that respondent has passed away in the meantime and his wife has been impleaded as the respondent.
8. In our view, the aforesaid makes no difference for the reason that if the delinquent official has been punished for such offence, and we consider this a serious offence, there is no reason to grant any benefit to the said delinquent official even if the conviction of sentence is only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
9. The natural consequence would be that the wife, as legal heir of the respondent, would also not be granted the benefits.
4
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order(s) and allow the appeal. The parties to bear their own costs.
......................J. [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ] ...................J. [ K.M. JOSEPH ] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 16, 2019.
5
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.8 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22989/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-11-2017 in DBSAW No.1083/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JETH MAL (D) THR. LR. SMT SUSHILA DEVI Respondent(s) Date : 16-08-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Stayendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsha Vinoy, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay B., Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Gaurav Y., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(POOJA ARORA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)