AVIJIT ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner had discord with his wife on the issue of dowry.

(2.) The fact would depict that the girl was subjected to cruelty within seven years of her marriage. She gave birth to a child who was 2 years old at the time of unfortunate demise of the victim girl who had to commit suicide being unable to bear the torture. The police implicated the petitioner and his parents under Section 498A/306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and kept in custody until he was released on bail. On September 15, 1995 he was put under suspension by his employer, Indian Oil Corporation(IOC), the respondent abovenamed. The petitioner pleaded innocence and faced trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia tried him along with his parents and ultimately found him guilty and convicted him and imposed the punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years coupled with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence committed under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Being aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court being CRA No.318 of 2002. On January 10, 2003, IOC issued show cause notice upon the petitioner to show cause why he would not be inflicted a punishment of dismissal on the ground of moral turpitude. Vide order dated April 11, 2003 the authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the strength of the Criminal Court judgement. Pertinent to note, the Criminal appeal was pending at that time. Vide judgement and order dated May 12, 2006 the learned Single Judge of this Court upset the conviction and signed a judgement of acquittal in appeal as against all the accused including the petitioner abovenamed. The petitioner did not produce the trial court judgement along with his petition. He however annexed the judgement of the Court of appeal appearing at pages 17-30 of the petition.