CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH RAJPUT Vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA ROZGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by respondent No. 5 as well as the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by respondent No. 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak vide order dated 21.08.2012. After the order of appointment, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent- Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2014 and an First Information Report was lodged against him under Sections 294 , 307 , 323 , 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of which, the petitioner was taken into custody for a period of 13 days and ultimately was released on bail. Thereafter, the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was dropped and for remaining alleged offences, the trial is going on before the Court below. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has made some complaint in respect of appointment of the petitioner as Rozgar Sahayak. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by which he was called upon, as he remained in custody for a period of 13 days upon lodging of First Information Report against him, as to why his services may not be terminated in accordance with Clause-16 Sub Clause (1) of the Rozgar Guarantee Guidelines. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.05.2017, respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Division Jabalpur along with an application for stay. The Commissioner has declined to grant interim relief vide order dated 23.05.2017. During the pendency of the revision before the Additional Commissioner, the complaint who, had lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner under Sections 294 , 323 , 324 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, entered into compromise and accordingly an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the trial Court. The trial Court vide order dated 25.05.2017 has allowed the application except for the charges under Section 324 as the same is not compoundable. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of charge before this Court. The said case was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 9042/2017 and in view of the compromise, this Court has quashed the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. As the Additional Commissioner refused to grant interim relief, the petitioner, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No. 7960/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.06.2017 with a direction to the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision while taking into account all the documents filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks and till the decision of the revision, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The Additional Commissioner, thereafter, vide order dated 30.06.2017 has dismissed the said revision. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order passed by the Commissioner is patently illegal. He submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal case and this fact was not considered by the Commissioner while deciding the revision. He further argues that the petitioner was not convicted in a criminal case, therefore, his services could not have been terminated by the respondents. He further submits that the criminal case registered against the petitioner has already been closed and he has been acquitted, therefore, there was no scope to continue with the order of termination and the same ought to have been set aside by the Commissioner. The effect of the acquittal of the petitioner is that he was never guilty of the charge on account of which FIR was lodged. He further argues that neither any departmental enquiry was conducted nor any proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He further submits that merely on the basis of registration of an FIR or custody of more than 48 hours, the respondents should not have terminated the services of the petitioner unless and until he convicted by the criminal Court. He further argues that the similar provisions are provided in Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and even in other statutory rules which provides for placing an employee under suspension if there is registration of criminal case or there is custody of more than 48 hours. Therefore, mere registration of offence or custody for more than 48 hours upon arrest cannot be a ground for termination itself.