SAILESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) Petitioner who was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Kerala Police Department happened to be convicted for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C. C. 165/2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. The Court which found him guilty imposed appropriate sentence also. Immediately on getting a copy of the judgment from the Trial Court the third respondent passed Ext. P1 order dated 7.7.2003 removing the petitioner from service in the terms of R.18 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 on the ground that the removal from service is on account of the conduct of the petitioner which led to conviction by a criminal Court. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 557/2003 before the Court of Sessions, Kottayam. But the Court of Sessions confirmed the conviction, though modified the sentence into one of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 190/2004 before this Court which was disposed of by judgment dated 30.3.2004 by which the petitioner was acquitted under S.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure taking into consideration a petition to compound the offence filed under S.147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with S.320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very language of S.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that when an offence is compounded it will have the effect of acquittal. On the basis of an order passed by this Court in the above Criminal Revision Petition, petitioner filed Ext. P3 representation before the Director General of Police for reinstating him in service after setting aside the order of removal.

(3.) When an employee has been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service solely on the basis of the conduct of the employee which had led to conviction in a criminal case, the order of dismissal is liable to be cancelled and the employee becomes entitled to be reinstated in service. Though Ext. P3 representation was submitted as early as on 5.1.2004, the second respondent has not passed any order on that.