DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person convicted of a criminal offence can certainly be dismissed from service on account of such conviction. The issue, however, in the present writ petition is slightly different and it relates to the power of the authorities to dismiss a person on account of his conviction for a criminal charge, which is stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction after the order of dismissal has been passed. Is it that the conviction for each and every offence should lead to dismissal or that nature of offence alleged is to be considered while passing any such order is another question arising in this case.

(2.) The Petitioner was serving in the Health Department as a Ward servant at Civil Hospital, Ambala. He was sentenced to undergo two years RI for his conviction for an offence under Section 323 IPC and similar sentence for conviction under Section 452 IPC coupled with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the Petitioner was required to undergo five months imprisonment in addition. The Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing a criminal appeal before this Court on 20.4.2006. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to suspend the sentence on.28.3.2006. Upon release on bail, the Petitioner was taken back in service and continued to perform his duties for almost three years. When the Petitioner became due for retirement on 27.2.2009, he was surprised to receive an order dismissing him from service just one day prior to his date of retirement on the ground that Petitioner has been sentenced and convicted in a criminal case. The Petitioner thereafter filed a criminal misc.petition before this Court in the criminal appeal filed by him challenging his conviction and sentence. This Court stayed the conviction of the Petitioner on 16.7.2009. The Petitioner accordingly filed application on 23.7.2009 for recall of the impugned order of his dismissal passed on 27.2.2009 and thereafter filed this writ petition when no action was taken on his representation.

(3.) Respondents have filed reply and would justify the order of dismissal due to conviction of the Petitioner for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. As per the Respondents, the offence under Section 452 IPC, for which the Petitioner has been convicted, is a serious offence and is an offence involving moral turpitude and so such a person could not be kept in service. The Respondents, thus, would justify the impugned order to be perfectly legal, valid and as per the law. To explain the delay in passing the order during which period the Petitioner was allowed to perform duties, it is stated that the order was passed after seeking legal opinion and consequently there was delay in passing the impugned order for which the Petitioner cannot take any advantage.