SANJAY KUMAR TAROTHIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fees within seven working days.

(2.) Heard on interim relief.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, being a brother-in-law (jeth), has been convicted under Sec. 498-A and under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is argued that the offence under Sec. 498-A has been taken off the list of offences amounting to moral turpitude by the Circular issued by the Home Department dtd. 24/7/2018, though the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act remains under the list of such offences. However, once Sec. 498-A has been taken off, the effect of retention of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the list is debatable. It is further argued that even if the authorities were under an obligation to impose a penalty, they should have given some reasoning regarding the quantum of penalty, which has not been done in the present case, and that it is not a case of corruption or any other offence which could have justified non-supply of reasons in the impugned order of termination from service. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 (3) SCC 398, it is argued that giving such reasons in some cases may be required, and this was one of such cases.