PADAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 14/5/2019 by which respondent No.2/Director General of Home Guards has dismissed the representation preferred by him for taking him back in service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 9/8/2004 passed by the respondents whereby he had been terminated from services.

(2.) As per the petitioner, he was initially appointed on the post of Constable [Sainik] in the Home Guard Department on 1/10/1988. On 15/4/2004 he was arrested in a criminal case after which his services were terminated on the ground that he was absent in election duty. In the criminal case registered against him, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore convicted him which order was affirmed by the Appellate Court by order dtd. 16/4/2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision before this Court which was allowed by order dtd. 2/8/2006 and his order of jail sentence passed under Sec. 325 of the IPC was set aside. It was stated therein that conviction of the petitioner will not be treated to be a disqualification as provided under Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for his services.

(3.) After the order passed in the criminal case, the petitioner filed applications before the respondents on 30/8/2006 and 5/1/2009 for taking him back in services but no action thereupon was taken and he did not receive any response. Petitioner hence preferred W.P. No.3675 of 2008 before this Court which was disposed of by order dtd. 5/12/2008 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and the respondents were directed to pass a detailed and speaking order within six months. Thereafter, the Divisional Commandant, Home Guard, Indore recommended and forwarded the case of the petitioner to Director General, Home Guard, Jabalpur vide letter dtd. 24/12/2009 but thereafter no action was taken. Petitioner hence again preferred W.P. No.2189 of 2012(S) before this Court in which reply was filed by the respondents along with which they filed a copy of order dtd. 9/8/2004 by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. By order dtd. 9/3/2019 the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down by this Court in R.P. Dwivedi vs. SECL 2011(4) MPLT 483. Thereafter, by order dtd. 14/5/2019, the representation made by the petitioner in light of the aforesaid order has been rejected by the respondents by observing that fifteen years have already elapsed since the time when the petitioner was relieved from services hence now he cannot be taken back.