RAJESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner was working on the post of Jail Guard. He was tried in a criminal case and ultimately he was convicted. The services of the petitioner were terminated by order dtd. 12/5/2018 passed by Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhopal on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by judgment and sentence dtd. 8/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act), Guna in S.T.No.1/2010. It is submitted that against the judgment of his conviction the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal No.6068/2017 and his sentence has been suspended. After the conviction of the petitioner, a suo motu enquiry was initiated and the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the basis of his conviction. The petitioner thereafter filed a departmental appeal against the order dtd. 12/5/2018 and the said appeal was also dismissed by impugned order dtd. 3/4/2019 passed by Director General of Prisoner and Correctional Services, Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application before the Jail Department and the said review application has also been dismissed by order dtd. 14/2/2020.

(3.) Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent authorities have terminated the services of the petitioner without considering the merits of the matter. It is submitted that a person cannot be terminated merely on the ground of his conviction and the authorities must consider the nature of offence as well as the allegations made against the delinquent officer and also that whether the offence involves moral turpitude or not. No such finding has been given and thus it is submitted that the order of termination is bad. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dtd. 7/1/2020 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No.14570/2009 (Ram Kishan vs. State of U.P. And others).