MADAN LAL Vs. JVVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur, by a communication dated 29.8.2012 informed to appellant -petitioner Madan Lal that appointment cannot be accorded to him on the post of Technical Helper being convicted in two cases relating to offences under the Rajasthan Excise Act. To challenge the decision of the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited the appellant -petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 29.1.2014.

(2.) IN appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that in two criminal cases though conviction of the appellant was recorded but benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to him, thus, the denial for employment is bad and learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Reliance is also placed by learned counsel upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India & Anr., reported in : AIR 1985 SC 772. In the case aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme Court held that powers by the competent authority are required to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Hon'ble Supreme Court also find the penalty of dismissal whimsical in relation to an employee who was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 409 Indian Penal Code but availed benefit of probation in place of undergoing any other severe sentence.

(3.) IN the instant matter the appellant -petitioner was held guilty for the offences punishable under the Rajasthan Excise Act. The conviction was also recorded in the year 2011 i.e. in recent past. In the case of Shankar Dass (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining validity of an order of dismissal in relation to a person who was convicted but granted benefit of probation. The case in hand is not of disproportionate penalty but of recruitment in public service. While making recruitment, an employer is required to take all necessary care about general conduct of the person who is to be recruited. The case of recruitment cannot be compared with a case of disproportionate penalty imposed upon a person already in employment. As such, the law laid down in the case of Shankar Dass (supra) is having no application in the instant matter. As already stated, the appellant -petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under the Rajasthan Excise Act and that certainly involve moral turpitude.