MADHVENDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties through their Counsel.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that after his conviction, a notice was issued on 26-5-2005 under Rule 19 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the petitioner did not submit a reply to the show-cause notice. The respondents have finally passed an order on 22-6-2005, removing the petitioner from services. The petitioner was later on acquitted by this Court in Cr. A. No. 967/2005, decided on 15-7-2008 and thereafter, on a representation was submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have issued an order on 13-2-2010, confirming the dismissal into compulsory retirement. The petitioner's appeal has also been dismissed by the authorities.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hazarilal,, 2008 3 SCC 272, and his contention is that even in a case of conviction, the order of dismissal was held to be a harsh punishment. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Ramratan Tiwari v. State of M.P.,,2002 5 MPLJ 11, and again his contention is that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service on account of his acquittal. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Ram Abhilash Shukla v. State of M.P. and others,, 2009 1 MPHT 401, and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment again the order of punishment deserves to be set aside.