JETH MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband joined on the post of Constable vide order dated 30/04/1971. He was promoted as Head Constable on 26/03/1973. He suffered conviction under Sec. 304-B and 498- A of Penal Code vide order dated 15/02/2001. Upon such conviction, the respondents invoked powers under Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and dismissed the petitioner's husband from service on account of his conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Penal Code leading to sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner's husband preferred an appeal before Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, bearing SB Criminal Appeal No.117/2001 in which the High Court vide judgment dated 10/03/2004 set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the major offence under Sec. 304 of Penal Code and convicted the petitioner only for the offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years was reduced to the sentence already undergone. Since the petitioner's husband was acquitted under Sec. 304-B of Penal Code and his termination was by invoking the special powers under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958, therefore, the respondents were required to revisit the order of termination dated 10/10/2001. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of the dismissal order dated 10/10/2001.

(2.) The respondents have filed reply and stated that since the petitioner's husband was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service under Rule 19(2) of the CCA Rules of 1958. It was also stated in the reply that compassionate allowance under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules was wholly at the discretion of the State Government and therefore, the petitioner's case was referred to the Financial Adviser, P.H.Q., Jaipur vide letter no.687 dated 27/09/2005.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner Shri Ankit Agarwal has stated that invocation of Rule 19(2) of the CCA Rules of 1958 is an extra ordinary power and the same has to be exercised strictly in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the departmental enquiry, if wholly dispensed with, then it is an exception to Art. 14 which implies and comprehends natural justice principles which are violated if in normal circumstances there is an exclusion of the principles. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Rule 19(2) of the CCA Rules of 1958 requires the disciplinary authority to record its satisfaction in writing that it was not reasonably attributable to follow the procedure prescribed in the rules whereas the respondents have failed to record any such reason in the order dated 10/10/2001. As per counsel for the petitioner, once the respondents had relied solely upon conviction of the petitioner's husband under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Penal Code and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and the aggravated part of the conviction and sentence has already been set aside by this Court, therefore, the respondents are under legal obligation to revisit the impugned order in light of the legislative intention enshrined under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel and others : 1985(3) SCC 398, the relevant portion of which, in the present facts and circumstances is quoted as follows :-