DEVENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15/06/2017 passed by respondent No.2 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector at P.S. Kotwali District Sidhi. In the year 2003 when the petitioner was posted at Tikamgarh, one Prakash Vishwakarma, Shilpi and Rajju had found treasure in the form of British Period Coins and Mughal period coins and golden plates. However, the said Prakash, Shilpi and Rajju did not inform the Collector about the treasure and thereby committed an offence under Section 4 r/w 20 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 and Section 206 of IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner and one Rameshwar, who were working as public servant not performed their duty by not informing the authorities about the treasure and, accordingly, the petitioner was also made accused in the matter. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has passed the judgment dated 10/02/2017 thereby convicting the petitioner under Sections 206, 212 and 119 of the IPC and sentenced him with 2 years S.I., 1 year S.I. and 6 months S.I. respectively. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge Tikamgarh. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 27/02/2017 has suspended the implementation of the conviction order. In furtherance of order of conviction respondent No.2 has issued a notice to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his reply as a department has to take disciplinary action against him. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice, however, respondent No.2 without taking into consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 15/06/2017, thereby dismissing the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 15/06/2017 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. He submits that no summary enquiry has been conducted by the respondents against the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 19 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (herein after referred as 'the Rules') and only on the basis of conviction order, his services have been terminated. He submits that the petitioner has not held guilty for moral turpitude. At the most, it can be said that the petitioner was failed to perform his duties and that would not fall within moral turpitude. He further submits that the impugned order dated 15/06/2017 is also without jurisdiction because the petitioner is working and posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at P. S. Kotwali District Sidhi, which comes under the Rewa Renge i.e. respondent No.3 DIG, Rewa Range and impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 i.e. DIG, Chhatarpur who has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He submits that the order of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate. He submits that the order of conviction has already been stayed by the appellate Court and, therefore, the order impugned be set aside. He further submits that during pendency of the petition, the Sessions Judge has passed the order dated 18/09/2017 thereby affirming the judgment passed by the JMFC. Against the order of Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Revision No.2767/2017 before this Court. The said revision was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2017 and this Court has directed that the petitioners be released on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- each before the trial Court within 30 days from today to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is also extended to the petitioner. Thus, the order of conviction imposed on the petitioner has been modified to the above terms. The petitioner further relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shankar Dass vs. Union Of India & another, 1985 (2) SCC 358, Union of India & others vs. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, 2001 (3) SCC 414 and State of M.P. & others vs. Hazarilal, 2008(3) SCC 273.