KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana Depot on 6.1.1999. Prior to his appointment an F.I.R. No. 29 dated 14.4.1998 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 427 and 34 I.P.C had been registered against the petitioner, his father as also two others. A cross case was also registered against the complainant Nazar Singh and others by the father of the petitioner under Sections 323, 326, 427 and 34 I.P.C. In terms of judgement dated 29.10.2001 passed by the J.M.I.C, Fatehgarh Sahab the petitioner along with others was convicted for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 427 and 34 I.P.C. In appeal the Addl. Sessions Judge had upheld the order of conviction but reduced the sentence that the petitioner had been awarded. Suffice it to notice that even the complainant i.e. Nazar Singh against whom the cross case had been filed was also convicted and sentenced on the same terms. The petitioner approached the High Court in terms of filing Criminal Revision No.1572 of 2003 and on 31.7.2003 the revision petition was admitted and the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana vide order dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure P -5). Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 5.3.2004 on account of having been convicted in pursuance to the criminal proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred a departmental appeal in terms of raising a specific plea that the offence for which the petitioner had been convicted did not involve any moral turpitude. Vide order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Special Secretary, Transport Department, State of Punjab the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service subject to the final decision of the High Court in the Criminal Appeal that was pending. In pursuance to such order the petitioner rejoined duties on 21.12.2005.

(3.) MR. Manu K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated simply on the basis of the conviction of the petitioner in criminal proceedings. Learned counsel would contend that it was imperative for the respondent -authorities to have examined the conduct of the petitioner, which had led to his conviction.