Uttarakhand High Court
Ramavtar Singh @ Ramavtar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 July, 2024
Reserved on:19.06.2024
Delivered on:03.07.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Special Appeal No.224 oF 2022
Ramavtar Singh @ Ramavtar ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned
Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The appellant has come up in appeal against
the judgement and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by
Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2022
(S/S), 'Ramavtar Singh @ Ramavtar V/s State of
Uttarakhand & Ors. By the impugned judgement and
order the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss
the writ petition observing that "since an F.I.R. has been
registered against the petitioner, therefore it would not
be proper for this Court to interfere at this stage, when
the investigation is still proceeding, based on F.I.R. If
the F.I.R. results in submission of a final/closure report,
then the petitioner may approach the Court again for
relief".
2. In a nutshell the case of the appellant is that
the appellant is working on the post of Home Guard
Constable 3083 at Home Guard Gramin Company,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, appointed by
respondent no.3. On 29.05.2022 when the appellant was
going to attend his duties, the real brother of the
appellant started quarrel suddenly for some family
dispute. The wife of the brother of the appellant lodged
a false F.I.R. by alleging fictitious and concocted
grounds. The F.I.R. was registered as F.I.R. No. 196 of
2022 on 31.05.2022 under section 323, 380 and 452
IPC at P.S. - I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. On
13.06.2022, when the appellant went to the office of
respondent no.3 and gave all the information. Even on
hearing the clarification the appellant was denied to join
the duty and all of sudden a letter no. D.C.-
37/H.G./2022-23/756 dated 13.06.2022. stating therein
that the clarification extended by you is not satisfactory.
There is an F.I.R lodged against you and you have not
informed about the same to your higher officials. This
act of yours has spoiled the image of Home Guard
Department which is a sign of gross indiscipline and
hence your duty/parade is stopped with immediate
effect since further orders.
3. Challenging the impugned letter dated
13.06.2022, the petitioner filed a writ petition, Writ
Petition 1158 of 2022 (S/S)which was dismissed vide
judgement and order dated 29.06.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on
the judgement in the case of Ram Chander v. State of
Haryana (2012 SCC Online P&H 11961)where the
facts before the Hon'ble Court were that the petitioner
was appointed on the post of skilled worker in the office
of Heat Treatment Centre, Faridabad on ad hoc basis. In
the year 2004 the petitioner's name figured in F.I.R. No.
200/1984, Police Station Narela. A trial was held wherein
the petitioner was acquitted by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgement dated 03.06.1989.
against the said judgement of acquittal,The State (Delhi
Administration) preferred an appeal before the High
Court which vide judgement dated 16.04.2007 convicted
the petitioner under section 324,324 read with section
34 as also section 452 of IPC. Petitioner was placed
under suspension w.e.f. 01.10.1984 and on his acquittal
by the Trial Court, he was reinstated into service on
09.08.1996. however, on his conviction by the Delhi
High Court, petitioner was served a show cause notice
dated 01.01.2010 as to why his service be not
terminated on his conviction, to which the petitioner
responded. Director of Industries and Commerce,
Haryana terminated the services of the petitioner vide
order dated 11.02.2010 on the basis of his conviction. It
is against this order that petitioner had approached the
Hon'ble Court primarily basing its reliance upon the
instruction dated 26.03.1975 according to which section
323 and 324 and also section 452 IPC are not stated to
be offences involving moral turpitude. The Writ Petition
was allowed and the impugned order whereby the
services of the petitioner was terminated was set aside.
5. In the present case, the respondent
department has also admitted in the short counter reply
that section 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC does not come
under the category of 'Moral Turpitude' as per the Rules
applicable to the Home Guards. Therefore, the
suspension of the appellant merely on the basis of FIR is
not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially when no
disciplinary proceeding has yet been initiated against the
appellant by the department.
6. This Court is of the opinion that mere
involvement and accusation in an FIR which has been
lodged in a private dispute by the appellant's brother's
wife would not render the appellant ineligible for doing
his duty to the post on which he was working as it does
not involve moral turpitude and accusation in an FIR is a
matter of trial.
7. Therefore, this court directs the respondent to
reinstate the appellant on his services with immediate
effect without being influenced or affected by the order
of suspension.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby, allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
NR/
