Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramraj Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2015
1
Writ Petition No. 12192/2015
21.8.2014
Shri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent
State.
Challenge put-forth by the petitioner in the present petition is to an order dated 16.6.2015 whereby the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Panchayat And Social Welfare Department and was posted at Government Middle School, Kadadi, district Shahdol has been removed from service on the ground that he has been convicted for offences under Section 353, 342, 336, Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 26/2004 by order dated 20.1.2006 for a jail sentence of 9 months on the ground that no show cause notice was issued, nor an opportunity of hearing was granted before taking a decision of removal.
Refuting the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is urged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner having been convicted for offences under Section 353, 342, 336, Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 26/2004 has been rightly terminated from service as it was within the power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 10 of Panchayat Raj Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as also the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. and another [2004 (4) MPLJ 555].
Rule 10 of Rules, 1999, reliance whereof is placed on behalf of respondent State provides for that:
10. Special procedure in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in rule 7, 8 and 9.-2
(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Panchayat Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case of pass such orders thereon as it deems fit."
Thus, a disciplinary authority is empowered to impose a penalty on a Panchayat Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
As to the contention whether an action is taken under Rule 10 (1) (i) whether a delinquent is entitled for an opportunity of hearing has been answered in negative by Full Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. and another (supra):
"11. We accordingly overrule the decisions of the Division Bench in Tikaram (supra) and Sheetal Kumar Bandi (supra), in sofar as they hold that the delinquent employee should be given a notice giving an opportunity to put forth his views as to the penalty proposed to be imposed.
12. The second premise in the Sheetal Kumar Bandi (supra) that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Court can examine whether there was consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty and correct the penalty if it is excessive, is in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Challappan, Shankar Dass, Tulsiram Patel and Sunil 3 Kumar Sarkat (supra). If the conviction is for any minor offence which does not involve any moral turpitude, a punishment of removal or dismissal from service will certainly be excessive. But where the conviction is on the ground of corruption, as in this case, there can be no two views that imposition of punishment by way of dismissal is just and proper and not excessive.
13. The order dated 16.4.2004 passed under Rule 19 of the State CCA Rules imposing the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive. The order does not suffer from any infirmity. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed.
Considered thus, the termination of the service of the petitioner on the ground of his being convicted in a criminal charge cannot be faulted with as would invite any intervention.
Consequently, petition being devoid of merit fails and is dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi