RAMGOPAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 4/10/2018 (Annexure-P/4), whereby, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Dhanouli on account of his conviction vide judgment dtd. 30/8/2017 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Special Case No.141/2015. In the said case he was convicted under Ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and 5 years, respectively, with default stipulations. The petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before this Court in CRA No.1505/2017, whereby, this Court vide order dtd. 10/11/2017 suspended the execution of sentence and directed to release him on bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the impugned termination order dtd. 4/10/2018 on the basis of conviction, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and even the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to him and without contemplating any departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. It is next submitted that the order passed by the respondents is in clear violation of service law as well as rights of Government servant stipulated in Constituted of India. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Gujrat at Ahmadabad in the matter of Ramsingbhai Vs. State of Gujrat (Civil Application No.22629/2019). He also places reliance in the matter of Vishwanath Vishwakaram Vs. State of UP passed in WA No.4422/2015 (Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC-LKO:59434). In view of the above, he prays to quash the termination order (Annexure-P/4) and allow the instant petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity 'CCA Rules, 1966') provides special procedure in certain cases and Rule 19 (1) categorically stipulates that when a person has been found convicted on a criminal charge, no enquiry is required. He submits that the only requirement is that the disciplinary authority shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case and it may make such orders thereon as it deems fit and the proviso also stipulates that the commission shall re-consult where the consultation is necessary. He further submits that in the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted on the charge of corruption for accepting the bribe and after consultation from CGPSC, looking to the gravity of offence and misconduct of the petitioner, as a major punishment dismissal was awarded to the petitioner by way of impugned order, which is not excessive and same is just and proper. He next submits that similar issue has been decided and princples have been laid down by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of MP and anr 2004 SCC Online MP 356 : ILR 2004 MP 1012. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.