KULWANT SINGH Vs. DY DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that needs adjudication in the present writ filed by Kulwant Singh is as to whether on conviction of an employee in. some criminal matter, whatever be the conduct of the delinquent leading to his conviction, he has necessarily to be dismissed from service or that while, in-flirting punishment, the conduct leading to his conviction has to be taken into consideration. The question posed above stems from the facts which need a brief mention.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as JBT teacher in Government Primary School, Dharmbad, District Gurdaspur. He was involved in a case under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Batala, on November 30, 1976 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his conviction which found no favour with the Appellate Court and, therefore, his appeal was dismissed on February 9, 1977. Still aggrieved, petitioner filed Criminal Revision before this Court which came up for final hearing on November 23, 1979. The order of conviction was upheld. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Courts below was reduced to the one the petitioner had already undergone. While disposing of the Criminal Revision No. 115 of 1977, the Hon'ble Judge observed as under:

(3.) MR . Masih, learned AAG, Punjab, on the other hand, contents that the Hon'ble Judge, while disposing of the revision petition, has also mentioned that the petitioner's right to stay in service is dependent upon stringency of service Rules and the relevant service rule talks of conduct leading to conviction and not the conduct that might amount to moral turpitude. Mr. Masih may be right and, in all probability, this Court would have remitted this case to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter but in view of the fact that the motion Bench, while admitting the petition, had stayed, operation of order, Annexure P-4a, as also that the petitioner who came to occupy the post of a teacher way back in 1963, either must have retired by now or may be at the verge of retirement as also for the reason that in any case it has already been held by this Court that conduct of the petitioner did not involve moral turpitude, it would not be in the fitness of things to remit this case to the authorities.