SATPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was dismissed from service following conviction on criminal charges under sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 506 and 452 IPC in FIR No.473 dated December 24, 2002 in Police Station, Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. His appeal against conviction and sentence failed when the learned Appellate Court, Kurukshetra rejected the appeal. The petitioner was sent to judicial custody on January 11, 2013.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court in Criminal Revision No.277 of 2013 against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below. The High Court suspended the sentence pending revision vide order dated April 02, 2013. On release from judicial custody the petitioner returned to his job only to be handed over an order of suspension dated March 25, 2013 endorsed on April 05, 2013. His request for reinstatement has not met with success. On December 09, 2013 the petitioner was dismissed from service following conviction on a criminal charge. He filed a statutory appeal (copy not placed on record) followed by a supplementary appeal dated December 21, 2014 against the order of dismissal but the same has been rejected by the competent authority vide impugned order dated July 01, 2015. The petitioner complains in his challenge on merits that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed and, therefore, it suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. At the time of dismissal, the petitioner was serving as an Inspector in Haryana Roadways, Karnal.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order placed at Annex P-6 in appeal reveals that resort has been had to the power under Article 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India for conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner has been held to be unfit to hold a public post re-affirming the earlier order dated December 09, 2013 passed by the disciplinary authority. It was argued before the Principal Secretary to Government in the department concerned in his capacity as the final appellate authority that neither a departmental inquiry was conducted nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner when the dismissal order was passed on December 09, 2013. The Principal Secretary considered the appeal and the supplementary appeal and rejected the same only for the reason that the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra had recorded conviction in a criminal case and, therefore, the Director, State Transport was well within his right and discretion to think it not expedient to conduct any departmental inquiry since the order of the High Court dated April 02, 2013 has merely suspended the sentence of imprisonment. The conviction stands sufficient for action taken under Article 311 (2) (a).