Amar Lal Arora vs The Vice Chancellor & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2109 Del

         *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 20th April, 2011

+                              W.P.(C) 2479/2011

%        AMAR LAL ARORA                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. R.R. Jangu, Advocate

                                   Versus

    THE VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS         ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                             NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                      NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                     NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 29th December, 2009 of the

respondent University of Delhi dismissing the representation of the

petitioner for review of the earlier decision / order dated 24th April,

2001 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the respondent

University.

2. The petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24 th April, 2001

from the employment of the respondent University, under Rule 75(1)

of the University Non-teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of

Services) Rules, 1971 for the reason of having been convicted of an

offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The petitioner earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.596/2002 in this

Court impugning the order dated 24th April, 2001 of dismissal. It was

the stand of the respondent University in opposition to that writ

petition that though the dismissal of the petitioner for the reason of his

conviction was in accordance with the Employment Rules (supra) but

if the conviction of the petitioner was set aside in appeal preferred and

then pending and if the petitioner was acquitted of the charge, then a

fresh decision would be taken on the issue.

4. The said W.P.(C) No.596/2002 was disposed of vide order dated

10th January, 2006 binding the respondent University to its statement

and further directing the respondent University to issue an order

reinstating the petitioner within four weeks on receipt of intimation of

acquittal or of setting aside of conviction of the petitioner. It was

further observed "In any other event, it shall dispose of the petitioner‟s

representation within six weeks. All rights and contentions of the

parties are kept open."

5. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction,

vide order dated 27th November, 2004 i.e. prior to the disposal of the

writ petition aforesaid, though the appeal challenging the judgment on

conviction was dismissed but the appeal challenging the order on

sentence was allowed by releasing the petitioner on probation for one

year and by directing the petitioner to pay compensation of `3,00,000/-

to his estranged wife.

6. The petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition (CRP)

No.291/2005 against the order dated 27th November, 2004 aforesaid of

the Additional Sessions Judge. The said CRP was pending at the time

of the disposal, on 10th January, 2006, of the writ petition being

W.P.(C) No.596/2002 aforesaid.

7. The said CRP preferred by the petitioner was disposed of vide

order dated 13th July, 2009. A perusal thereof shows that the only

grievance raised by the petitioner during the hearing of the writ petition

was that owing to the conviction he stood dismissed from his

employment. It was the contention of the petitioner in the CRP that

owing to the pendency of the said revision petition, the respondent

University was not considering the representation against the order

dated 24th April, 2001 of dismissal. The order dated 13 th July, 2009 in

the CRP shows that the petitioner did not press the CRP on merits but

only contended that the conviction should not be treated as a

disqualification for reinstatement by the respondent University. This

Court referring to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

and being of the view that the petitioner having been released on

probation was unlikely to suffer any disqualification, disposed of the

writ petition.

8. The respondent University vide order dated 29 th December, 2009

impugned this petition dismissed the representation of the petitioner for

review of the order dated 24th April, 2001 on the ground that the order

of conviction of the petitioner had not been set aside in the CRP and

the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act was not

available to the petitioner.

9. The petitioner first filed contempt case (C) 26/2010 averring the

University to be in disobedience of the order dated 10 th January, 2006

in the earlier writ petition. However, the said contempt petition was

also not pressed on 1st December, 2010 seeking liberty to prefer an

independent petition challenging the order dated 29 th December, 2009

of the University.

10. The counsel for the petitioner relies on Shankar Dass Vs. Union

of India AIR 1985 SC 772 and the Divisional Personnel Officer

Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216.

11. However, the aforesaid judgments rather than helping the

petitioner are against the petitioner. Both lay down that Section 12 of

the Probation of Offenders Act concerns statutes which provide that

persons who are convicted for certain offence shall incur certain

disqualifications and does not concern the Rules of dismissal from

service / employment on account of conviction. The counsel for the

petitioner however contends that in both cases ultimately the order of

reinstatement was made. He thus contends that whenever conviction

results in a sentence on probation, reinstatement should follow.

12. A close scrutiny of the judgments aforesaid would show that

while in Shankar Dass (supra) reinstatement was ordered finding the

punishment of dismissal to be disproportionate to the offence for which

the petitioner was convicted, in Divisional Personnel Officer

Southern Railway (supra) reinstatement was directed because the

authorities concerned had failed to consider the punishment to be

meted out owing to conviction and had wrongfully presumed that on

every conviction the order of dismissal from service has to follow.

13. The facts of the present case are different. The petitioner has

been convicted of an offence under Section 498-A i.e. of subjecting his

wife to cruelty. The conviction of the petitioner has been maintained

in appeal as well as the revision petition.

14. I have enquired form the counsel for the petitioner whether the

petitioner has since arrived at any amicable settlement with his

estranged wife. The answer is in the negative.

15. I am of the view that considering the nature of the offence of

which the petitioner has been convicted and considering the reasons for

which the same was constituted as an offence and introduced in the

IPC in the year 1983, if this Court were to hold that conviction for such

an offence is not serious enough to result in dismissal from service, the

same would be counter protective and would give impetus to the

menace still prevalent of cruelty to women and which could not be

controlled inspite of constituting the same an offence nearly 20 years

ago. Thus, I am unable to find any error in the order of the University

in dismissing the representation of the petitioner and in maintaining the

order of dismissal of the petitioner from employment for the reason of

conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC.

16. There is thus no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed in

limine. No order as to costs.

CM No.5209/2011 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 20, 2011 „gsr‟