TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on his conviction in a FIR which was registered against him under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC. While passing the order, the conduct of the petitioner was not taken into consideration and it was merely because the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in a criminal case that he was dismissed from service vide the said impugned order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-2). Appeal which was preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure P-8) without taking into consideration the fact with regard to the suitability and fitness of the petitioner for retention in service and with regard to the conduct of the petitioner in the offence in which he has been found to have been involved for which punishment was imposed upon him and he had undergone sentence. In the revision preferred in this Court, the period of sentence was reduced to F/2 years from 2 years, which was the initial sentence. On this basis, petitioner has approached this Court challenging these orders.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (2) SLR 576, that merely because an employee has been convicted and sentenced should not automatically entail dismissal from service as has happened in the case of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Hari Ram Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2006 (2) SCT 112 and Kaur Singh and another Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (4) SCT 426. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.23306 of 2010 titled as Kulwant Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-9) and CWP No. 7644 of 2007 titled as Man Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-10).

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that not only the Punishing Authority but the Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the contention, as has been raised by the petitioner. He contends that the competent authority having applied its mind found that the petitioner having been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, which conviction order stands upheld up to the High Court except for reduction in the sentence, the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, therefore, cannot be doubted. He contends that the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment also is not in dispute and the competent authority having considered these aspects has rightly come to a conclusion that the dismissal of the petitioner is in accordance with law and does not call for any lenient view. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders cannot be said to be unsustainable as they are based upon proper appreciation of the fact that the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence after a trial.