RATIRAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the Petitioner has been terminated forthwith on the ground that on police verification being conducted so far as his criminal antecedent is concerned it was revealed that he was an accused in Crime No. 63 of 1984 of Police Station, Bagbahara for the offence under Sections 323, 294, 506(B), 336, 341, 452, 427, 147, 107 and 116(3) of Penal Code and that he had admitted his guilt for the offence under Sec. 427 of Penal Code and he was let off with fine of Rs.200.00.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that the said order is per se illegal on the ground that before issuance of the said order no show cause notice or a departmental enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the Respondents. He further contends that it was necessary for the Respondents to have also taken into consideration the fact that whether the alleged act on the part of the Petitioner in committing the offence under Sec. 427 of Penal Code would fall within the ambit of moral turpitude or not. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, indisputably, the incident in which he was criminally prosecuted is of the year 1984 and in 1984 he was a young boy of around 15 years of age. The Counsel further submits that since the nature of the offence itself was so petty that the Court itself had only imposed fine on the Petitioner shows that the nature of the act was trivial and was not heinous or a grievous crime.

(3.) It was further contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner that subsequently he had applied for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer which was scrutinised and upon the Petitioner being found to be suitable he was granted an order of appointment vide order dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure P-2) on which post he immediately assumed his duties and was discharging the same till abruptly the impugned order dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) was passed. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner had already completed the two years of probation period and had put in more than 3 1/2 years of service and therefore the respondent authorities ought to have at-least issued a show cause notice and also conducted an enquiry before the impugned order was passed. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner non-issuance of a show cause notice and also non-conducting of departmental enquiry amounts to clear violation of the principles of the natural justice inasmuch as the theory of audi alteram partem has not been followed by the Respondents.