SHIV KUMAR RATTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiv Kumar Ratti, who was working as Inspector, Food and Supplies in the department of Food and Supplies, Punjab, has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.2.1986 (Annexure P-2) vide which he was ordered to be dismissed from service with retrospective date i.e. 31.01.1985.

(2.) In the instant petition, the petitioner alleged that when he was serving as Inspector, Food and Supplies, Ropar, he was charge sheeted for a major punishment under Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, on account of some deficiency in the weight of the wheat delivered to F.C.I. and on the allegation that he was absent from duty for a certain period and regarding shortage of stock purchased by P.R. Centre, Nurpur Bedi during the year 1981-82. During the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.2.1983 (Annexure P-1). When the aforesaid enquiry was pending, FIR No. 29 dated 28.10.1983 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 409/120-B and under Section 5(2) read with 5(i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ultimately, in the said FIR, the petitioner was convicted by Special Judge, Ropar, vide judgment dated 31.1.1985 and was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of payment, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Since the petitioner was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was decided by respondent No. 2 that in view of the conviction of the petitioner, it is not desirable to keep him in service in public interest, therefore, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service with effect from 31.01.1985 (date of conviction) vide order dated 13.2.1986 (Annexure P-2). The said order is under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the sole ground that no retrospective order of dismissal can be passed. It has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner has been confirmed in appeal by this Court. The petitioner was dismissed by the respondents on his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act under Rule 13(1) of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal), 1970. The said Rule provides that if the punishing authority is satisfied with that it is not reasonably possible to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under the aforesaid rules, the workman can be dismissed without holding an enquiry on his being convicted in a criminal case. The petitioner is not challenging his dismissal from service on any other ground except on the ground that the respondents were not competent to dismiss the petitioner from retrospective date even under the aforesaid rules. In reply, learned counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that even if it is held that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated with retrospective effect, the petitioner should be treated as dismissed from services from the date of order. He submitted that the impugned order consists of two parts. One is dismissal of the petitioner from services on the ground of his conviction in the criminal case of corruption and the second part is that he was ordered to be dismissed from a retrospective date. He submitted that even if the second part of the order is invalid that will have no effect on the first part of the order, and the petitioner will be deemed to be dismissed from service from the date of passing of the order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras, 1966 AIR(SC) 951 and The Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation v. P.H. Brahmbhatt, 1974 AIR(SC) 136.