Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Charan Nayak vs Avvn Ltd, Ajmer & Ors on 27 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1746 / 2017
Ram Charan Nayak S/o Shri Payar Chand Nayak, aged about 30
years, by caste Nayak, Resident of Adiwali, Post Baya Chaani,
Adiwali, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.) - Technical Helper
(Probationer Trainee) in the Office of the Assistant Engineer
(Rural), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Salumbar (Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing
Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Makarwali Road, Panchsheel Nagar,
Ajmer
2. Secretary (Administration), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Makarwali Road, Panchsheel Nagar,
Ajmer
3. Zonal Chief Engineer (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Udaipur
4. Superintending Engineer (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, District Udaipur
5. Dy. Director Personnel (Udaipur Zone) Having Charge of
Personnel Officer (Udaipur Circle), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Udaipur
6. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Salumbar, District Udaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K.M. Vyas
For Respondents : Mr. Mrigraj Singh
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Judgment / Order 27/03/2017 The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the (2 of 4) [CW-1746/2017] Order dated 06.01.2017 vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated with a further prayer to continue/reinstate him back in service on the post of Technical Helper.
The facts in short are that the petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 342 & 147 of the I.P.C. He was acquitted for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 342 of the I.P.C. on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. However, he was convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. but was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the year 2008.
Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. which deals with punishment for rioting and a person can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both and therefore, as per Section 206 of Cr.P.C., a Magistrate while taking cognizance of a petty offence can summarily dispose a case under Section 260 of Cr.P.C. and for the purpose of Section 206 of Cr.P.C., petty offence means any offence punishable only with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees. But in the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 147 of the I.P.C.
Heard.
It is not disputed that the petitioner is otherwise acquitted for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 342 of the I.P.C. except Section 147 of the I.P.C. The argument that Section 147 of the I.P.C. is not minor offence will not help as the petitioner has been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of (3 of 4) [CW-1746/2017] Offenders Act, 1958. It is further stated that the petitioner had concealed the fact that he was convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.
The Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & ors. (Special Leave Petition [C] No. 20525/2011) decided on 21.07.2016 has specifically held as under :-
"(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse."
In the similar set of circumstances, the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1603/2011) decided on 27.08.2012 has observed that criminal case arising out of the matrimonial dispute is not a case of moral turpitude and denial of appointment on the ground of pendency of such case should not come in the way of the petitioner.
(4 of 4) [CW-1746/2017] It is evident that the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) were not before the authorities at the time when the order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed.
In view of the above, the Order dated 06.01.2017 is set aside with liberty to the respondent authorities to pass fresh orders after keeping in view the above observations and in terms of the judgments rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra).
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. However, it goes without saying that the petitioner will be paid his salary for the period, he has put in service.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
Inder/42