CHARAN SINGH Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal dated 20.6.2003 and subsequent order dismissing his appeal dated 17.3.2004 The petitioner was a Beldar in the Health Department of respondent no.1, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He was an accused in case FIR 578/96 of P.S.Mehrauli. He was convicted by Shri H.S.Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide a judgment dated 18.9.2001 for the offence under Sections 307/34 IPC. There was an appeal from this judgment which was decided by this Court on 31.10.2001. The conviction was converted into under Sections 324/34 IPC. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence as well as the character of the offender, the Court directed to release the petitioner and the other accused in that case on probation of good conduct. Petitioner and other accused were released for a period of two years on their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period. The petitioner and other accused were directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period of the bond. The respondent served the petitioner with a notice to show cause on 19.8.2002 proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. As per the memo, the respondent having noticed the conviction and the order of probation and the conduct leading to petitioner's conviction in the criminal case, found that his further retention in the Municipal service was not desirable and proposed to impose upon him penalty by dismissal from service which would be a disqualification for future employment by invoking Regulation 9(i) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. The memorandum further says that the petitioner was being given an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed above. The order of penalty was imposed. After considering the representation of the petitioner, admittedly no formal charge-sheet was given and no inquiry was held, although the petitioner was given an opportunity to examine the records and also to get the advice or assistance of any municipal officer or employee for his defence. The penalty order of the Additional Director (Vigilance) confirmed the proposal of dismissal from service by invoking Regulation 9(i) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. The representation/appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the next order of 17.3.2004 All that this order says is that there was no new ground furnished by the petitioner which required a fresh consideration of his case.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged these two orders on the ground that the petitioner had been released on probation and was entitled to the benefit of being released on probation and could not have been deprived of his job. The petitioner has also named several persons who, after conviction, had been let off with minor punishment. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the inquiry could be dispensed with by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 9(i) and also under Article 311(2) and the conviction in the criminal case has sufficiently proved of his misconduct. It is further contended that the petitioner did not chose to represent his case by appearing in person before the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority and further that he has mislead the department by his letter dated 22.11.2001 wherein he had stated that he had been acquitted by the High Court.

(3.) Provisions of Regulation 9(i) and (ii) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 are shown to me by the respondent. The provisions are as under:-