H.R.T.C. Vs. ONKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through die records of this case.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that respondent No. l was prosecuted under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur in case No.25 -2 of 1992. By means of judgment dated 30th September, 1992, the trial court found him guilty of all the offences for which he was charged i.e. under Sections 279/337/338 of die Indian Penal Code. While hearing the said respondent No. 1 on quantum of sentence, the trial court was of the view that since respondent No. 1 is the first offender, as well as has got his aged parents and children to look after as there is none other person to look after them which position is not disputed by the prosecution besides this, no previous conviction was brought to the notice of the trial court, accordingly taking a lenient view of the matter he was admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was warned not to commit such offence in future and be careful. The respondent a questioned this judgment of the trial court in Criminal Appeal 2 of 1993 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By means of judgment dated 25th June, 1996 while dismissing the appeal, it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge below that since the appellant is first offender without any previous conviction at his credit and he being the only bread earner of his family, he deserves to be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. It was further observed that the trial Court had already taken lenient view by ordering his releasing under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, after due admonition. The appellate Court further observed that respondent No. l (Appellant in the said appeal) was an employee of H.R.T.C. and on account of the above conviction has been dismissed from the service and was thus, dealt with harshly in the opinion of the appellate Court by the department. In those circumstances, the court observed that "I, therefore order that his conviction under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC shall have no effect on his future service. In case he has been dismissed from service on the grounds of his conviction, in this case, he. should be reinstated immediately. His conviction in this case shall nut have any adverse effect on his future service, in any manner." It is this part of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1993, dated 25th June, 1996, in case Onkar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, by which the petitioners are aggrieved.

(3.) It may be necessary to dialate on few other facts in this case. It appears that employer of respondent No. l i.e. H.R.T.C. at its Mandi Division, Mandi had initiated inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against respondent No. l and after receipt of the inquiry report from the Inquiring Officer, notice of show cause for imposition of major penalty had been served upon the petitioner on the basis of such inquiry report. After receipt of representation from respondent No. l to the show cause notice, he was removed from services on 5th June, 1995 vide Annexure P -11 by the Divisional Manager of petitioner No. l Corporation of its Mandi Division.