LIKHMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, working with respondent suffered a conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325/34 and 341 Indian Penal Code under the judgment dated 15.7.2003 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. The conviction stood affirmed by the appellate court, however, the revisional court while affirming the conviction extended benefit of probation as per section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vide judgment dated 8.12.2004. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner by an order dated 12.8.204 dismissed him from service while exercising powers conferred upon him as per Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Rule 19(i) of the Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18, where a penalty is imposed upon a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit. The provisions of Rule 19 carves out certain exceptions to the regular procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 and 18 for adjudicating alleged misconduct of a government servant.

(2.) The argument advanced to challenge the order of dismissal dated 12.8.2004 is that the disciplinary authority as per Rule 19(i) of the Rules is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, wherein on basis of the conduct a government servant suffers conviction. On such consideration, the disciplinary authority then should exercise its discretion to pass appropriate order, but in the instant case no such consideration was made and the disciplinary authority just on the count of recording conviction, dismissed the petitioner. It is urged that the power exercised by the disciplinary authority is not consonance with the spirit of provisions concerned and the entire process is completed mechanically.

(3.) The respondents in their reply tried to justify their action with assertion that "the services of petitioner was terminated vide order dated 12.8.2004 as he was found guilty for the offences under Section 324/341, 325/34 and 341 IPC and a sentence of two years imprisonment and fine Rs. 1000/- was awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. The petitioner has availed the statutory remedy against the order of sentenced before the Sessions Judge, Pali by way of filing an appeal and before the High Court by way of filing Revision petition. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 341, 323, 325/34 of IPC were maintained by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court while deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 the services of petitioner are liable to be dismissal from service. Therefore the services of the petitioner were rightly dismissed."