Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tek Ram, Demonstrator vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 25 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR283
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 18.3.1988 (Annexure P-2) whereby he was dismissed from service on account of his conduct which led to his conviction on criminal charges under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code in the case arising out of FIR No. 21 dated 30.7.1981 and which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar, vide judgment dated 23.3.1987.
2. The petitioner joined the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') in 1971 as Gurguide and was subsequently promoted as Demonstrator Gur Khandsari in the year 1984. On 30.7.1981 F.I.R. No. 21 was registered against the petitioner along with some other employees of the Board under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B at the Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, which ultimately culminated into his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hisar, vide judgment and order dated 23.3.1987. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. The petitioner went in appeal which too was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 22.2.1988 (Annexure P-l).
3. It appears that the factum regarding conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar, was suppressed by him from the authorities in the Board. However, after dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the fact regarding conviction of the petitioner came to the notice of the authorities which further led them to pass the order dated 18.3.1988 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 22.2.1988, namely the date when his appeal was dismissed by learned the Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved at the aforesaid order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The primary contention raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No. 245 of 1988 in this Court challenging the judgment dated 23.3.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar as well as the judgment dated 22.2.1988 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and, thus, the conviction and/or consequential sentence had not attained finality, therefore, the order of his dismissal from service was premature.
5. On a query by this Court, it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the aforementioned Criminal Revision has since been dismissed by this court on 19.4.1993. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner preferred any further petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and if so, what was the fate thereof. It appears that conviction of the petitioner has attained finality. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the action of the Board in dismissing the petitioner from service as a result of his conviction, is justified or not?
6. The contents of the judgment dated 22.21988 (Annexure P-l) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveal that the F.I.R. in question was registered against the petitioner and some other officials of the Board for their act of committing forgery and cheating in performance of their official duties thereby causing financial loss to the Board. The very fact that the petitioner has been found guilty of committing offences under Sections 420/467/471/120-B I.P.C. leads to an irresistible conclusion that he is guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude. Even in the case of a civil servant, to whom there exists a protection under Article 311(2) of our Constitution, it is permissible to remove him from service under clause (a) to second proviso of Sub-Article (2) of Article 311 on the basis of the conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The petitioner, who was an employee of the Board, even if he is placed on the same pedestal, namely, at par with a civil servant, he can not claim protection more than what Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India extends to civil servants. Since his conduct has undoubtedly led to his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude and which exhibits dishonest performance of duties by him, the competent authority in the Board was well within its right to dismiss him from service on that count. No fault, thus, can be found with the order (Annexure P-2). Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no orders, however, as to costs.