SATYA DEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has been convicted by a court of law has been challenged. The petitioner was a teacher Gr.II. On the basis of a first information report lodged against him by his sister -in -law he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - by his judgment passed on 23rd April, 1984. On basis of this conviction, the respondents terminated his services by order dated 30th June, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction made by the Magistrate and this appeal was decided by the Additional Session Judge, Ajmer on 8th November, 1985 and by this decision, the petitioner was acquitted. Thereafter he made several representations before the authorities for his re -instatement but no order was passed even after calling for the certified copy of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, which was submitted by the petitioners.

(2.) THE termination has not only been challenged on the ground that after his acquittal in the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner should be reinstated in service, but also on the ground that termination merely on the basis of conviction by the court of law is not proper as provisions of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA' Rules') have not been complied with. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, they are not in dispute. A written reply has been filed by the respondents in which the acquittal of the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge has been accepted. The only defence appears to be that correspondence is going on with the Government and the Directorate of Education for purposes of passing suitable orders.

(3.) I would have sent the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for considering the question of penalty before imposing the same under Rule 19 of the CC and A Rules but in view of the fact that the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner and set aside the conviction there is no conviction on basis of which the Disciplinary Authority can impose any punishment on him. It is a very sorry state of affairs that such decisions are not taken by the concerned authorities on the representations which are preferred by the aggrieved persons and they are forced to approach this Court for seeking relief. The reply filed by the respondents only goes to show that inspite of long correspondence no decision was taken by the Government even after having learnt that the appeal of the petitioner had been accepted and he had been acquitted of the criminal charge. It is time that the Government authorities should wake up to such situations in time so that unnecessary litigation can be avoided. One of the reasons for the high rate of pendency of cases in the courts of law can also be said to be the inaction on the part of the Government in taking decision at the proper time.