MACHHINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was sentenced to one year R.I. plus Rs. 300/- as fine and two months Simple Imprisonment in default thereof. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal, before the Appellate Court. At the initial stage itself, the petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken. He conceded to the finding of the trial Court in the judgment dated 11.12.2000. As noticed earlier, in the aforesaid judgment, the trial court had held the petitioner guilty under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Before the appellate court, the petitioner merely sought reduction in the sentence on compassionate grounds. The plea of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate court and he was directed to be granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 5.3.2004 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid dismissal before this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 5032 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench by passing a short order on 25.5.2005 which is reproduced in its entirety as under :

(2.) IN obedience of the aforesaid orders, the respondents served a memo dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure P-6) asking the petitioner to submit his reply by raising all the pleas available to him in writing within 10 days from the receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted a reply on the same date (Annexure P-7). It was stated that entire record pertaining to 33 years service of the petitioner is available with the Board. However, the entire record has been kept a secret and it was only to the knowledge of the concerned Office Superintendent. He also stated that even the entire record pertaining to his case was in the office of the Secretary Legal. He does not have any sort of record pertaining to his case. He, therefore, requested that the findings on which the clarification is required the record pertaining to the same may be made available to him. He also pointed out that since the order dated 5.3.2004 had been quashed by the Court, he should be taken back on duty, forthwith. After the receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 8.7.2005 (Annexure P-8). Order of dismissal dated 5.3.2004 had been withdrawn. The petitioner has been placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 5.3.2004 as his case is being reconsidered by the competent authority pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 2.5.2005 and in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 4(4) read with other enabling provisions of the PSEB Employees (P&A) Regulation, 1971. Again, another notice has been issued to the petitioner on 11.7.2005 (Annexure P-9) directing him that in case he wishes to produce any new submission, then he should produce it within 10 days of receiving the letter. Inspite of submitting a reply to the aforesaid communication (Annexure P-9), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the considered opinion that it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to make any observations whatsoever on the merits of the case of the petitioner. We are of the opinion that the writ petition is wholly premature. The petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to Court. The petitioner has only been placed under deemed suspension. The case of the petitioner is being reconsidered by the competent authority. The respondents have also sent communication to the petitioner asking him to explain any circumstances that may be in his favour. Surely whatever has been argued before us, could well be submitted before the authorities also. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the plea that such a harsh punishment of dismissal from service cannot be imposed on him, for merely attending the marriage of his brother. The respondents are duty bound to take all the pleas raised by the petitioner into consideration. They are also duty bound to keep in mind that the conviction of the petitioner has been maintained. It was not challenged by the petitioner in the appellate court. He merely asked for a lenient view to be taken. Hence, he was given the benefit of probation. They are also required to keep in mind that the release of the petitioner on probation does not have the effect of wiping out the conviction.