Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2017
~1~
WP No. 2368/2017
20/9/2017
Shri Akash Rathi learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri P. Shrivastava learned counsel for respondents/State.
Heard.
By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2/1/2017 whereby the petitioner's case for reconsideration of order of dismissal has been rejected.
Brief facts are that petitioner was working as Assistant Grade III and was implicated in a case for offence under Section 498A of IPC at the instance of his daughter-in-law and he alongwith his other family members was convicted for said offence by judgment dated 24/4/13 by the trial court against which the appeal was dismissed by order dated 26/8/13 and the revision petition being Criminal Revision No. 936/13 is pending before this court in which initially the sentence was suspended , thereafter the conviction itself has been suspended. The petitioner on account of being convicted in the criminal case was dismissed from service by order dated 26/3/2016 invoking Rule 19 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner had filed WP No. 2381/16 which was disposed off with certain direction to respondents to reconsider the issue of dismissal. By the impugned order dated 2/1/17 the prayer of petitioner has been rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 8/11/16 while taking note of the judgments in the case of Tikaram Windwar Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies MP reported in 1978 MPLJ 57 and Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of MP and another reported in 2004 (4) MPHT 343 (FB) and also considering the fact that conviction and sentence of petitioner was stayed had issued following direction:
~2~ 5 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment delivered in the case of Tikaram Windwar (supra ) was referred to Full Bench in the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2004 (4) MPHT 343 (FB). The said judgment has been overruled by learned Full Bench, however, a liberty has been granted to the employer to re-consider whether the punishment of dismissal is appropriate or not, looking to the facts of the case. Only in the case of conviction on the ground of corruption, punishment of dismissal is found just and proper and not excessive. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
11. We accordingly overrule the decisions of the Division Bench in Tikaram (supra) and Sheetal Kumar Bandi (supra), in so far 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 Kumar Sarkar (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 byway of dismissal is just and proper and not excessive.
6 In view of the above subsequent development, by which the conviction of the petitioner has been stayed by this Court in Criminal Revision no. 936/2013 and in light of the liberty given by the Full Bench delivered in the case of Laxmi Narayan ( supra ), the impugned order dated 26/03/2016 is set aside and is remanded back to the respondent/s to reconsider the entire afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days ( Sixty days ) from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition stands disposed of."
The impugned order dated 2/1/17 reveals that the competent ~3~ authority has not considered the effect of stay of petitioner's conviction and sentence as also position of law which was reflected in the aforesaid order but has rejected the petitioner's case only on the ground that petitioner has not been acquitted. The concerned authority has not applied its mind in the light of the direction issued by this court.
Hence the impugned order dated 2/1/2017 is set aside and competent authority is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner in the light of the direction issued in WP No. 2381/16 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ