VEERAPPAN Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was a member of the Police Force under Ex. French Government. He continued to be a constable, after the de jure transfer, under the Union territory of Pondicherry. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1963. While he was serving as a Head Constable in Reddiarpalayam in 1967, he applied for medical leave for six months from 5th August 1967, for taking treatment for leprosy. He again applied for leave for further six months and got the leave sanctioned. He again applied for the extension of leave for further period of six months. Before the expiry of the extended leave for six months, the petitioner got himself involved in a criminal case. He was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate for an offence punishable under S. 147, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. The matter was taken up in appeal, and ultimately in a revision to this court, this court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The result was that the petitioner has been in jail for six days. After the petitioner was convicted by the Criminal Court, the second respondent passed an order on 2nd January 1969, dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 13th August, 1968, i.e., from the date of his conviction by the First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry in Crime No. 17 of 1968. The petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Lt. Governor of Pondicherry praying that he might be compulsorily retired on the ground of physical incapacity or that disciplinary proceedings might be initiated against him on the basis of the Criminal Court Judgment. That appeal was partly allowed and it was ordered that the dismissal from service will operate only from the date of the order of the dismissal and not from the date of the judgment of the Criminal Court. The petitioner has been thereafter making representations to the respondents that the offence with which he has been convicted by the Criminal Court did not involve any moral turpitude, that as such he could only be retired compulsorily under S.59(1) of the Police Standing Orders, Volume 1, and that therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law. All his representation having been turned down, the petitioner has approached this court ultimately challenging the order, dated 14th July 1972, of the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent in his order, dated 27th June 1974.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence, with which the petitioner in this case has been convicted, does not involve moral turpitude, that as such the case of the petitioner should be dealt with only under S.59(1) of the Police Standing Orders, Volume I, and that if compulsory retirement is ordered as per S.59(1) the petitioner will be entitled to pension. The petitioner's case is that by dismissing the petitioner straightway on the basis of the judgment of the Criminal Court, without taking any disciplinary action he has been deprived of his pension, as he had put in the qualified years of service and this results in a double punishment. The petitioner's alternative case is that even if compulsory retirement cannot be ordered straightway disciplinary proceedings under S. 73 of the order, could have been initiated by framing a charge basing on the conviction of the Criminal Court.

(3.) Since the order impugned in the writ petition is the order of the second respondent holding that the petitioner is not entitled to pension, the validity of the order of dismissal from service does not arise.