TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. Trilochan Singh the petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, was employed as a Veterinary Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Rajasthan. He was prosecuted in respect of the offe ces under Sections 409,420 468, 20i and 120b, I. P. C. , before the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Karanpur. The Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, by his judgment dated 3rd August, 1981, convicted the petitioner of the offences under Sections 408, 120b, and 201, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur. and the said appeal is pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. and the sentence imposed on the petitioner, has been suspended during the pendency of the said appeal. After the aforesaid conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, under his judgment dated 3rd August, 1981, and during the pendency of his appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, the Director, Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan, Jaipur, passed an order dated 17th May. 1982, whereby the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 1st May, 1982. In the said order a reference has been made to the conviction of the petitioner on a criminal charge under Sections 408, 120b, and 201, I. P. C. , and it has been stated that the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction, was such as to render his further retention in the public service undesirable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17th May, 1982, removing him from the service, the petitioner filed this writ petition wherein the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 17th May, 1982, passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan, Jaipur, be quashed.

(2.) A notice was issued to the respondents of the writ petition and in response to the said notice, a reply has been filed on their behalf.