Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & ... vs Desh Raj on 2 September, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.146 of 2014 (O & M)
DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2014
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
Desh Raj
.
... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present :Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellants *** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ):
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited has filed this intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.08.2013, rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.5627 of 2012) filed by the respondent Desh Raj for setting aside the order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-4), whereby he had been dismissed from service only on the ground that he had been convicted under Section 325 IPC was accepted and the said order was set aside. The learned Single Judge had made the following observations:
It is interesting to note that vide notification dated 02.02.1973, a list of offences which constitutes moral turpitude under various sections of IPC includes Section 325 IPC but in the subsequent instructions Annexure R-3/4, the same has superseded the earlier instructions dated
02.02.1973. The list of sections of Indian Penal Code concerning various offences involving moral turpitude NEENU VERMA 2014.09.10 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.146 of 2014 -2- included in subsequent instructions dated 26.03.1975 shows that offence/conviction under Section 325 IPC is not included in the said list. Even otherwise the facts and circumstances of each case are to be seen independently. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted for having assaulted his cousin brother on account of some dispute of agricultural land.
In view of the fact that Section 325 IPC has specifically been excluded from the list of offences under moral turpitude, the dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of conviction under Section 325 IPC is illegal, arbitrary and not warranted by the instructions of the Board.
The letter dated 19.09.1975 (Annexure R-3/5) approving the instructions dated 26.03.1975 by the Secretary, HSEB, Chandigarh has been adopted superseding the earlier instructions dated 02.02.1973." Though, the present appeal is barred by limitation and an application (CM No.388-LPA of 2014) for condonation of 90 days delay in filing the appeal has been moved by the appellant, but notwithstanding the same, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the appeal and thus, we proceed to order.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the respondent was convicted under Section 325 IPC for having assaulted his cousin brother on account of some dispute qua an agricultural land. It has also not been disputed that in the instructions dated 26.03.1975, vide which the earlier instructions dated 02.02.1973 were revised, the offence under Section 325 IPC is not described as an offence of moral turpitude. NEENU VERMA 2014.09.10 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.146 of 2014 -3- Learned counsel for the appellant has also not controverted the judgment of this Court in Krishan Dev vs. State of Haryana 2003(2) SLR 658, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, wherein an employee who was dismissed only on the basis of his conviction under Section 325 IPC, the order of his dismissal was set aside. However, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the case of Krishan Dev (supra), a delinquent employee though convicted under Section 325 IPC but was released on probation, whereas in the present case, he has been awarded sentence as already undergone. To our minds, the difference in the sentence awarded does not make any difference. The fact remains that in both the cases the employee has been convicted under Section 325 IPC, which undisputedly does not find mention in the list of the offences of moral turpitude.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
02.09.2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
neenu JUDGE
NEENU VERMA
2014.09.10 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh