TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the concurrent finding recorded against him by the courts below.

(2.) The appellant, who was a driver working with the Haryana Roadways Karnal, was involved in a road accident. He was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the trial Magistrate. The appeal taken before the Additional Sessions Judge, too was dismissed. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal, thereafter vide order dated December 26, 1983 dismissed him from service by virtue of the provisions of Article 311(2) (a) of the Constitution of India on account of his adverse conduct which had led to his conviction. The service appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Transport Commissioner on June 16, 1986. The appellant thereafter filed a suit challenging the aforesaid orders. As already indicated above he has remained unsuccessful; hence this second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that as the appellant was not guilty of any offence involving moral turpitude, his services ought not to have been dispensed with. He has also urged that as the orders passed did not indicate any application of mind as required by Article 311 inasmuch as that the appellant would face dismissal in case of conviction on a criminal charge only if the authorities found that his conduct was of such a nature which required that he, should not be retained in service and such findings had nowhere been rendered by the authorities. He has finally urged that in the light of the government instructions dated February 2, 1973, the appellant was liable to be considered for re-employment as a rehabilitative measure as the offence alleged against him did not involve any moral turpitude.