SATYENDRA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application was initially filed for quashing the order dated 23rd of June, 1998 (Annexure -6) whereby the petitioner who was a Sailor in the Indian Navy was discharged from service. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 2nd of February, 2001 (Annexure -10) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for re -in statement has been turned down. However, when the matter is taken up Mr. Chitranjan Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on account of the fact that the petitioner 'sengagement has come to an end on 31st January, 2001, petitioner is not claiming for reinstatement but his "prayer is that all other service benefits which was denied to him on account of his termination from service, be given to him.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was a Sailor in the Indian Navy and he proceeded on 56 days leave to his native place with effect from 15th of September, 1994. During the leave period he was made accused in a murder case and ultimately by judgment and order dated 22nd of December, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial Ho. 177 of 1995. he was convicted for offence under sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for a period of five years respectively. When the fact of conviction of the petitioner came to the notice of the Naval authorities, by order dated 23rd of June, 1998 (Annexure -6) he was discharged from Naval service. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1998 (Satendra Sharma alias Totan Sharma vs. State of Bihar) before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9th August, 2000 (Annexure -1) set aside the conviction of the petitioner and acquitted him of all the charges. While doing so, this Court observed as follows: - "For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, it appears that the occurrence had taken in some other manner and not in the manner disclosed by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses have not spelt out the truth. It has come in the evidence of the informant that there was some enmity and previous grudge in between the prosecution side and the appellants.The defence version of the case that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case, therefore, cannot be completely ruled out as the prosecution evidence creates doubt and does not inspire confidence."

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the assertion of the petitioner that he was discharged from service on account of his conviction by the trial court has not been denied. Further it has not been denied that the order of conviction has been set aside by the appellate court. However, it has been stated that the petitioner has spent more than five years and ten months in jail after conviction and during this prolong period he must have come across with criminals and anti social elements in jail and hence re -instating the petitioner is undesirable in disciplined and fighting service which requires high standard of conduct and moral. It has been furfher stated that the petitioner has not been acquitted by the High Court honourably but was given the benefit of doubt.