PURAN LAL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TUBEWELL DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner was a part time tube well operator. It appears that the petitioner has been convicted under sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC and, therefore, by the order dated 20th November, 2009, the service of the petitioner have been terminated. Against the conviction order, the petitioner filed the appeal, which has been allowed in part. The petitioner has been acquitted under sections 325 and 504 IPC, but the conviction under section 323 IPC has been upheld and the petitioner has been released on probation under section 4 of the U.P. Probation of First Offender Act. After the decision in the appeal, the petitioner filed a representation before the authority concerned for recalling of the order dated 20.11.2009. When no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 14252 of 2011, which has been disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected wherein it has been held that the petitioner has not been acquitted finally under all the sections of the IPC and, therefore, the order of dismissal from service has been upheld.

(2.) Sri Veer Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction under section 323 of the IPC will not come within the purview of moral turpitude and the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated. He placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Parashu Ram Semwal v. The Registrar, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garwal University, Srinagar, Garwal and others, 2000 41 AllLR 832.

(3.) I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner.