BHARAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, found the petitioner guilty of having committed an act under Section 409 of the Penal Code for having misappropriation a sum of Rs. 9417.75 and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a finance of Rs. 1000/ -. This conduct on the basis of which he was convicted, was found to be sufficient to render the retention of the petitioner in the National Seeds Corporation Ltd., undesirable. In addition to this, a departmental enquiry was also held. In this enquiry., it was found that the petitioner had embezelled a sum of Rs. 4039.20. Taking into consideration the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also the order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end. He was dismissed from service. An order to this effect was passed under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner was held not entitled to gratuity and was also deprived to the benefit of employers contribution towards Provident Fund. This order was passed on 26th May, 1977.

(2.) THE petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction. The petitioner was acquitted. The judgment of acquittal was recorded on 26 -12 -1996 by the court of Session. After this, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent Corporation. He pointed out as he has been acquitted of the charge, therefore, he should be reinstated. As nothing material happened, he approached this Court. He submits that he is entitled to reinstatement because the very basis which led to his dismissal from service has ceased to exist.

(3.) THE stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was dismissed from service not only on the basis of conviction but also in pursuance of an enquiry held by the respondent employer. It is stated that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges. He was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.4039.20. It is accordingly submitted that even if that part of order which deals with taking into consideration the factum of conviction, is ignored, even then, the remaining order based on dismissal in consequence of departmental enquiry would survive the challenge made by the petitioner.