BHARAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bribe taking Patwari relies on technicalities to save his service from which he stands dismissed upon his conviction for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has filed this writ petition for setting-aside this order of dismissal on the ground that his conviction was made the sole basis of the order without considering the conduct, the past record and length of service. This, as per the petitioner, would make the order illegal, ultra- vires, void and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Would this proved misconduct in accepting bribe call for any punishment less than dismissal ? Is there a need to evaluate facts in such like cases, if nothing less than dismissal may be called for ? Asking the authorities to do, may lead to stretching things to the point of breaking.

(3.) The petitioner, while working as Patwari, allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs. 1500/- from one Jai Narain on the pretext of preparing a copy of jamabandi of his land. After trial, the petitioner has been convicted by Special Judge, Rohtak and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner still would make a futile attempt to refer to the evidence to question his conviction in the present writ petition. Obviously, this Court can not examine the validity of the conviction here. The main challenge of the petitioner of course is to the order of dismissal, which was passed by the Collector on 30.3.2009 on the ground that he stood convicted in a criminal case.