Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 2 March, 2020
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Kailash Prasad Deo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
.....
W.P.(S) No. 4729 of 2019 ......
Dhirendra Kumar Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
2. The Join Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
3. The Director General, Directorate of Mines & Safety, Hirapur, Dhanbad
4. The Director of Mines Safety (S.D.), D.G. M.S., Hirapur, Dhanbad
5. The Deputy Director General, Mines Safety Zone, Eastern Zone, Sitarampur Burdhwan (W.B.) ..... Respondents PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC .......
Per Kailash Prasad Deo, J.: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred writ application against the judgment dated 15.03.2019 in O.A./051/00166/2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi. The Original Application had been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:-
(i) The respondents be directed not to give effect to the rejection order dated 14.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 [Annexure-
A/11] passed by the DGMS [SD] and to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the order and direction dated 23 rd May, 2017 [Annexure-A/14] issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.
(ii) The Director General, Directorate General of Mines Safety Respondent No.3 be directed to pass final order on the application dated 18.02.2017 and to review and recall the order of compulsory retirement of this petitioner within a stipulated period considering section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
(iii) The Respondent No.3 be directed not to sit tight over the matter and to review the punishment order of compulsory retirement under Rule 29[A] of the CCA Rule and to reinstate this petitioner with all consequential benefits for which he is legally entitled to.
2(iv) The respondent No.3 be directed to extend the benefit of his reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to perform his regular duties till his age of superannuation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed against the petitioner may be set aside in view of CCA Rule 29A and Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after conviction of the petitioner in Koderma P.S. Case No.165 of 1994, G.R. No.406 of 1994, T.R. No. 155 of 1996 for the offence under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Koderma vide judgment dated 30.01.1996, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 27.03.1996 and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 06.09.1996. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation against the proposed punishment. However, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 30.06.1997 ordering compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.06.1997 due to his conviction on a criminal charge. The writ petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the appellate authority which was also rejected vide order dated 29.10.1997. In Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1996 preferred by the petitioner vide judgment dated 27.01.1998 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, though the conviction has been maintained but the sentence has been modified from rigorous imprisonment of one year to release of petitioner on probation bond of good conduct for one year on executing bonds of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount and to receive sentence if ordered by the court and to maintain good conduct in the meantime. The writ petitioner has submitted various representations before the competent authority with a request to recall his compulsory retirement order after release on probation and to allow him to perform his duty but the Under Secretary Government of India vide Letter dated 25.06.1998 informed the Director General, Directorate General Mines & Safety, Hirapur, Dhanbad that advice of DOPT was sought for. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.02.2001 the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India for revocation of compulsory retirement on the 3 ground that he has been released on probation by the learned District and Sessions Judge but his representations dated 26.03.2014, 15.05.2014 and 18.08.2014 remained pending. Even his revision application remained pending. Thus the applicant preferred O.A No.51 of 2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2015 with a direction to the respondent i.e. Director of Mines Safety (S.D.), D.G.M.S., Hirapur, Dhanbad to treat the original application of the applicant as a representation and to consider and dispose it of by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the rules, within a period of four months. Accordingly, the reasoned and speaking order has been passed on 23.05.2016 by Director of Mines Safety (S.D.), D.G.M.S., Hirapur, Dhanbad, whereby his request of revocation of compulsory retirement has not been accepted. The same had been issued with the approval of the competent authority.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that legal opinion has been sought for from the Ministry of Labour and Employment by the Director General, Directorate of Mines & Safety, Hirapur, Dhanbad on 27.04.2017. It has been opined that the case of the delinquent officer for review/revocation of order of compulsory retirement may be considered as there is no 'disqualification' as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but the learned CAT while dismissing the application of the petitioner has taken a contrary view and did not consider the same under Rule 29A of the CCS (Pension) Rule.
5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has opposed the same and has submitted that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 only relates to sentence and it has not washed away the conviction of the writ petitioner in a criminal trial rather the same has been affirmed by the appellate court as well as this Court in Revisional Jurisdiction. As such, the same does not require any interference by this Court. In support of the same learned counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Union of India & Ors. vs. Bakshi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 426; Karam Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 748; and Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad vs. P.R.K. Mohan, (1997) 11 SCC 571.
6. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Apex Court in the case of Divisional 4 Personnel Officer Southern Railway and Another vs. T.R. Chellappan, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2216 has held that the conviction of an accused, or the finding of the Court that he is guilty, does not stand washed away because that is the sine qua non for the order of release on probation. The order of release on probation is merely a lenient view substituted for sentence to be served by the convict. Thus factum of guilt on the criminal charge is not swept away merely by passing the order under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Bakshi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 426; Karam Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 748; and Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad vs. P.R.K. Mohan, (1997)11 SCC 571.
7. Since the writ petitioner has been convicted under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC by competent court of law, which has been affirmed by the court of appeal as well as High Court in the Revisional Jurisdiction, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi. Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
8. Since the earlier Original Application bearing O.A. No.732/1999 on the same issue has been dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1999 and has attained finality, as such, another Original Application on the same ground has rightly been dismissed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
9. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 02.03.2020 sandeep/R.S.