Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramendra Agnihotri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
W.P. No. 8959/2021
(Ramendra Agnihotri V/s. The state of M.P.)
Date: 06.08.2021:
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala, learned Government Advoate
for the respondent/State.
********
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by
the order dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby he has been
dismissed from service by way of major penalty upon conviction
under Section 324 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 12.02.2021.
(2). Facts of the case in short are as under:
The petitioner was working as Wireman Grade-2 in the Public
Health Engineering Department. A criminal case has been registered
against him under Section 294, 324, 341, 506 (Part-II) of I.P.C. on
27.11.2011. He was subjected to the regular trial after filing of the
charge-sheet. Vide judgment dated12.02.2021, the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore has convicted him under Section 324
of I.P.C. and sentenced to remain till rising of the court with fine of
Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. The
petitioner did not assail the judgment dated 12.02.2021 and accepted
the punishment.
On the basis of aforesaid conviction, without issuing any show
cause notice and conducting departmental enquiry, the Chief
Engineer, vide order dated 31.03.2021 has terminated him from the
services in exercise of powers under Rule 3 (1) and (3) of M.P. Civil
Service (Conduct) Rule 1965. Hence, the present petition before
this Court.
(3). The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground
that he has been illegally terminated from the services as he did not
- : 2 :-
commit any misconduct in the service. The conviction under Section
324 of I.P.C. is not related to any moral turpitude and offence has not
been committed while discharging the official duties.
(4). The respondents have filed reply admitting that the petitioner
has been terminated on account of his conviction under Section 324
of I.P.C. by the Court of justice. The respondents have placed
reliance over the provision of rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 under which the
employee is liable to be dismissed from service upon conviction. The
respondents have also placed reliance over the rule 2 and 3 of M.P.
Civil Service (Conduct) Rule 1965, which mandate that
government employee shall not do any work which is unbecoming of
a government servant. Due to previous enmity the petitioner has
assaulted the injured in which there is maximum punishment of 3
years. It is also submitted that petitioner was a employee of
contingency establishment, therefore, he was not a regular employee,
thus he has rightly been terminated from the services without
undergoing any regular departmental enquiry.
(5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the records.
(6). Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance over the judgment passed by Apex Court in case of State of
Madhay Pradesh and others Vs. Hazarilal (2008) 3 SCC 273, in
which the Apex Court has set aside the order of termination of a writ
petitioner who was dismissed from the services upon conviction
under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. by the Court of Magistrate. The Rule
1996 was considered by the Apex Court in detailed and held that an
authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is
bound to take into consideration all the attending facts and
circumstances of the case before imposing an order of punishment. .
- : 3 :-
He was occupied the lower rank of the cadre and merely a
contingency peon. Continuation of his service in the department
would not bring a bad name to the State and he was not convicted for
any act involving moral turpitude and he was not punished for any
heinous offence, therefore, the Apex Court has set aside the
termination. The relevant part of paras are reproduced below:-
" 7. By reason of the said provision, thus, "the disciplinary authority has been
empowered to consider the circumstances of the case where any penalty is
imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction on a criminal charge", but the same would not mean that
irrespective of the nature of the case in which he was involved or the
punishment which has been imposed upon him, an order of dismissal must be
passed. Such a construction, in our opinion, is not warranted.
8. An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is
bound to take into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances of the
case before imposing an order of punishment. While exercising such power, the
disciplinary authority must act reasonably and fairly. Respondent occupied the
lowest rank of the cadre. He was merely a contingency peon. Continuation of
his service in the department would not bring a bad name to the State. He was
not convicted for any act involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for
any heinous offence."
(7) In the present case, the petitioner was working as class-IV
employee and at present he is aged about 60 years after rendering 30
years in class-IV in contingency establishment, thereafter he has
been terminated. He was facing trail since 2011 but no departmental
action was taken against him. The offence under Section 324 of
I.P.C. is not a heinous offence or involving any moral turpitude. The
dismissal would affect his pensionary benefit payable to him till end
of his life. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in
case of State of Madhay Pradesh and others (supra), order dated
31.03.2021 is unsustainable, hence, accordingly, same is set aside.
The petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits.
Petition is allowed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
praveen
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN
NAYAK
Date: 2021.08.11 12:31:56
+05'30'
