UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Technical Assistant under MNREGA Scheme by order dated 26.03.2008 pursuant to advertisement dated 22.01.2008. Even the petitioner was continuously discharging the duties, on account of entry wrongly made by 'patwari' of the area with regard to their ancestral land in favour of petitioner and his brother, their uncle filed criminal case against them for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 -B IPC and petitioner was arrested in connection therewith on 04.01.21012 but was eventually released on bail on 16.01.2012 by order dated 13.01.2012 of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 451/2012, as the matter was settled between the parties. Pursuant to aforesaid compromise, the proceedings against the petitioner were also dropped by order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mundawar (Alwar), by order dated 30.09.2013. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aforesaid case was result of some confusion between the petitioner and his brother, on the one hand, and his uncle, on the other hand, and that matter has been settled long back.

(2.) PETITIONER has been continuously working with the respondent Department on the said post except for the period he remained under detention, wherefor he applied for leaves, which were sanctioned. When the case was settled, the Development Officer -cum -Programme Officer, MNREGA, Panchayat Samiti Mundawar (Alwar), vide letter dated 27.02.2012, forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Additional District Programme Coordinator and Chief Executive Officer, Zila parishad, Alwar, seeking guidelines. The Chief Executive Officer by order dated 05.04.2012 conveyed that by virtue of clause 7(iii) of the contractual appointment, the term of appointment has come to an end by efflux of time and stands abated. This fact was factually incorrect because the term of all other employees who were working like the petitioner, was extended, which is evident from the order dated 28.02.2012 issued by the Government. The post on which the petitioner was working is still lying vacant and it is contended that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances. The respondents therefore ought to consider the case of the petitioner and they may be directed to continue him in service.

(3.) ON hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing material on record, I find that though it is a fact that the petitioner was arrested but at the same time the fact is that he was not involved in a case of moral turpitude and that it was a dispute with regard to ancestral land between the petitioner and his brother on the one hand and his uncle on the other hand. The matter was settled before this Court when the bail was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the compromise deed was filed before the trial Court, which declined to attest the compromise as some of the offences were not compoundable. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings keeping in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. This Court allowed the said petition and thereafter the Judicial Magistrate by order dated 30.09.2013 attested the compromise and dropped the proceedings in the criminal case against the petitioner. That would mean as if there was no criminal case registered against the petitioner. The satisfaction recorded by the Additional District Programme Coordinator and Chief Executive Officer in the order dated 05.04.2012, that he has rendered himself unfit on account of his character being doubtful, cannot be considered correct in law.