DAL CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the Additional Director (Education) Uttaranchal, Dehradun and also the order dated 30.7.2003 which has been passed by the Principal, Rajkiya Inter College, Audali, Udham Singh Nager. In addition to it, the petitioner has also prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Lecturer (Hindi Department) during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who, at the relevant time was a Lecturer in Hindi, was implicated in a criminal case in the Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 302/34/ 201 I.P.C. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed and criminal trial proceeded against the petitioner in which the petitioner with other co-accused was convicted of murder and sentenced for life imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. THE petitioner, however, contends that against the order of conviction and sentence he filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1019 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, as the crime was committed on the border district of Uttar Pradesh at Thakurdwara which falls in district Moradabad, which is in Uttar Pradesh. This appeal has been admitted and the petitioner has been enlarged on bail on 5.3.2003. However, vide order dated 30.7.2003 the services of the petitioner have been terminated in further compliance of the order of the Additional Director (Education), Uttaranchal, Dehradun dated 24.7.2003 under provisions of Article 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 311 has an important bearing in this case, the same is being reproduced as under for ready reference :-

(3.) ALTHOUGH, no formal amendment has been made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has stayed the execution of sentence awarded to the petitioner, he is liable to be reinstated in service and the order of termination of his services is liable to be set aside. This argument of the petitioner is wholly misconceived, for the simple reason what has been stayed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is the execution of the sentence and not the "conviction" of the petitioner. Requirement under Article 311 (2) (a) is "conviction on a criminal charge". The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C. by a competent criminal court still stands and, therefore, the argument of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Moreover, where the execution of sentence is stayed no benefit can be granted to the petitioner presently in the writ petition, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Ramesh Kumar (1997) 7 SCC 514. The Supreme Court in the above case has held that in cases where an employee is dismissed from service on the ground of his misconduct leading to his conviction by a competent court of law, it will not loose its sting merely because a criminal appeal has been filed against the order of conviction and the appellate court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the employee on bail. All the same, what is important is what has already been stated above, the order of the conviction against the petitioner still stands and has not been stayed.