TIKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to reinstate him and for quashing the order dated 29. 3. 2000 (Annx. 7), by which petitioner stood dismissed from service.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was an employee of the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan and while he was working in Patwar Mandal, Ludhawari, district Bharatpur, a criminal case for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act") was registered against him and he was also put under suspension vide order dated 7. 10. 91. As the criminal case remained pending for a long time, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 23. 3. 93. Subsequently he was again put under suspension. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the Disciplinary Authority by serving a charge sheet alongwith statement of allegations on 3. 7. 90, wherein the allegations had been the same as were in the criminal case. Petitioner filed the reply on 6. 8. 93 that enquiry could not be proceeded with till the criminal case was decided. Vide judgment and order dated 4. 9. 96, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and for the offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Act, a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed against him; however, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 545/1996 before this Court against the said judgment and order of the trial Court and vide order dated 26. 9. 96 (Annx. 4), the sentence was suspended. Petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 23. 10. 98 after the interim order passed by this Court in the said criminal appeal on 26. 9. 96 but his services have been terminated vide order dated 29. 3. 2000 (Annx. 7), Hence this petition.

(3.) THUS, in view of the aforesaid, a clear picture emerges that the Appellate Court in exceptional case may put the conviction in abeyance alongwith the sentence, but such a power requires to be exercised with great circumspection and caution and for that the applicant must satisfy the Court as what evils are going to visit him if the conviction is not suspended. The Court has to consider the facts properly pleaded by the applicant in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case warrant such a course.