INDER LAL Vs. LACHHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition u/arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against a decision of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, setting aside the election of Inder Lal petitioner to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ajitgarh on the ground that he was disqualified under section 11 (g) of the Panchayat Act as he was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for a contravention of rule 50 of the Rules framed thereunder. The case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was that on 11. 2. 62 he had exhibited for sale some articles of food without obtaining a licence as prescribed under rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 11/ -. The judgment of the learned Magistrate goes to show that before the date on which he was found exhibiting the articles in question for sale he had applied for renewal of a licence and had deposited the necessary fees for renewal. But in fact he had never obtained any licence and so no action could be taken on his application for renewal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the offence committed by the petitioner involved moral turpitude. THIS finding is challenged on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) THE following four decisions were cited before me - Durga Singh vs. THE State of Punjab (l), Sahiram vs. Rajasthan State (2), Baleshwar Singh vs. District Magistrate & Collector, Banaras (3) & Mangali vs. Chhakki Lal (4) In the Punjab case (i) a police constable was convicted under section 34 (6) of the Police Act, 1861. THE finding of the learned Magistrate who convicted him was that he was found heavily drunk on the roadside in Sanjauli near the tunnel and abusing passers-by on 2. 10. 1945 at about 8 p. m. THE constable was dismissed and the question which arose for decision before the High Court was whether his case fell under proviso (a) to article 311 of the Constitution. THE relevant part of article 311 runs as follows: - "311. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him: Provided that this clause shall not apply - (a) where a person dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge;