ROHITASHWA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the validity of the impugned orders dtd. 3/10/2017 and 10/7/2018 by which services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of suppression of the material fact regarding his conviction in a criminal case involving offence under Sec. 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

(2.) The petitioner was working on the post of teacher and a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Jhunjhunu on 23/3/1994 and he was arrested on the same day and he remained in judicial custody for 49 days w.e.f. 23/3/1994 till 10/5/1994 and he concealed this fact from the department and submitted application seeking extraordinary leaves of these 49 days on the ground of illness of his daughter and family circumstances and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, he faced trial for the offences under Sec. 307/34, 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 75/1994 (37/1997) and he was convicted for the offences punished under Sec. 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment vide judgment dtd. 24/8/1998. The petitioner submitted SB Criminal Appeal No. 639/1998 against the said judgment before this Court and the same was partly allowed on 15/5/2015 and his conviction was upheld by this Court and he was released on the sentence already undergone by him. A charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') was served upon him and two charges were framed against him that he concealed the fact regarding his arrest in a criminal case and getting the 49 days of arrest period sanctioned as extraordinary leaves and received the half pay salary. The petitioner submitted his explanation that due to lack of knowledge about the rules, this fact regarding his arrest was not disclosed and he had been acquitted in that criminal case by the High Court vide judgment dtd. 15/5/2015. Relying upon the above explanation furnished by the petitioner, the departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was dropped and the 49 days arrest period of the petitioner was sanctioned as extraordinary leaves vide order dtd. 1/5/2017. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement (for short, 'VRS') and the same was allowed on 3/7/2017 and his VRS was accepted w.e.f. 6/9/2017. Prior to the effect of the voluntary retirement on 6/9/2017, the VRS order dtd. 3/7/2017 was withdrawn on 4/9/2017 and the principle of school was directed not to relieve the petitioner.

(3.) Thereafter, considering all above facts regarding his conviction and decision of the High Court upholding his conviction and looking to the misconduct of the petitioner about concealment of his conviction in a criminal case, a decision was taken on 03/10/2017 to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner assailed his termination order dtd. 03/10/2017 before the Appellate Authority i.e. Director, Secondary Education Bikaner by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules 1958 but the same was rejected vide impugned order dtd. 10/7/2018.