SIVAN T.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered the service of the second respondent Board as Mazdoor (Electrical Worker) on 2/5/2014. Much prior to the petitioner's appointment, a crime had been registered against him for the offences punishable under Ss. 448 and 326 of I.P.C. The allegation was that the petitioner had criminally trespassed into the tea shop of PW1 and inflicted grievous injuries to PW2 with a billhook. The jurisdictional Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 448 and convicted him for the office under Sec. 326 of I.P.C. In the appeal filed against the conviction and sentence, the Sessions Court reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment to one year and conformed the sentence of fine as well as the default sentence. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision before this Court, which culminated in Ext.P1 order, affirming the conviction and reducing the sentence to simple imprisonment for one day, till raising of the court, and compensation of Rs.15,000.00 to PW1 under Sec. 357(3) of Cr.P.C. This court also observed that the offence under Sec. 326 I.P.C. being purely private in nature, will not come under the category of moral turpitude.

(2.) In the meanwhile, a show cause notice dtd. 25/6/2015 was issued to the petitioner, proposing to terminate his service by reason of his conviction in the criminal case. Thereafter, Ext.P3 order dtd. 30/9/2015 was issued terminating the petitioner from the service of the Board. The appeal preferred against Ext.P3 was also rejected under Ext.P4 order dtd. 1/3/2016.

(3.) Challenging the show cause notice and Ext.P3 order of termination, the petitioner preferred W.P. (C).No. 21454 of 2015. In support of the challenge, reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in KSEB Ltd., Tvm and others v. Damodaran P [2017 (3) KLT 794]. Finding substance in challenge, with particular reference to the observation in the Criminal Revision Petition that the offence under Sec. 326 of I.P.C. will not fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude, this court set aside Ext.P3 order, granting liberty to the KSEB to issue fresh order with respect to the petitioner's service, after adverting to the observations in the judgment (Ext.P2) and the ratio in Damodaran P (supra). In purported compliance of the direction, the third respondent issued Ext.P6 order confirming Ext.P3 order. In the meanwhile, Ext.P4 order had also been passed by the third respondent, affirming the petitioner's termination from service. Hence, the writ petition, seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P6 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Mazdoor (Electrical Worker) with effect from 30/9/2015.