SUNDAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, it has been prayed that the order dated July 20, 1982, passed by the Collector (Land Record), Bharatpur, by which the petitioner was removed from service, may be quashed and set aside and he may be re-instated.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari in the year, 1961. While he had gone on leave at his home village Khatnawali, he was implicated in a criminal case on May 21, 1970 alongwith eleven other persons. The petitioner was convicted alongwith others by the trial Court under Sections 452, 323, 325/34 and 307, IPC and sentenced to four year's rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, partly allowed the same and upheld only conviction under Sections 325/34 and 452, IPC and reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner and others preferred revision before the Hon'ble High Court, in which, the sentence was reduced from two years to already undergone. The petitioner remained in Jail for about two months. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that even as per findings of the Sessions Judge, it was a case of free fight, in which both the sides suffered injuries. It is further stated that cross cases were instituted by the parties. The petitioner was released on bail by the Police at the lime of his arrest and continued to be on bail during trial, pendency of appeal. He was also released on bail by the High Court, during the pendency of revision.

(3.) REFERENCE may be made to The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another v. T. R. Challeppan (1 ). This was a case, in which, an employee was convicted on a criminal charge. The appellant was arrested at Railway Station Plat-form for disorderly drunken and indecent behaviour and a criminal case under Section 51 (A) of the Kerala Police Act was registered against him. He was convicted, but was released on probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore,he was removed from service, in view of his misconduct, which led to the conviction of the respondent on a criminal charge. It was held by the Apex Court that when an employee is convicted on criminal charge, the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances, cannot be upheld. In the matter under consideration also, the order Anx. 4 will show that the disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind on the facts & circumstances, which led to the conviction of the petitioner.