RAM BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the order of his termination on the ground that on the basis of certain charges a departmental proceeding and also a criminal case was instituted but no action was taken in the departmental proceeding rather he was exonerated in 1995. But on the basis of the conviction of the petitioner in criminal case in 2001 the impugned order was issued that too before seven days of his superannuation.

(2.) MR . V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule 166 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules and submitted that the provision has not been complied with in as much as before passing the order of termination the principles of natural justice has not been followed. From perusal of the counter -affidavit it appears that the petitioner was convicted in Vigilance Case No. 9/1989 and Special Case No. 12/1989 under Sections 7, 13(1) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,500.00 . On the basis of his order of conviction the order of termination was issued. The only question raised by Mr. Singh is that before issuing the order of termination principles of natural justice has not been followed. In my opinion and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court if a person is convicted then before passing the order of termination there is no need to follow the principles of natural justice. In the case of Hukmi Chand V/s. Jhabua Cooperative Central Band Ltd., Jhabua and Anr., 1998 (2) SCC 291 in similar circumstances in the case of conviction the services of the Bank employee was terminated and it was held that such order of termination does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. After acquittal it is the discretion of the employer to reinstate the employee without any back wages. Similar principles was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Vishnu Panvakar V/s. Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2249. In that view of the matter I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed.