1^3 v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Forest, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur
Case Details
•Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocste with Shri Sumit Verma, counse' for the petitsoner. Shri Arun Sao, Go\'t. Advocate for the State. vVltn TH8 CDHSSHt 0s ES3m£u COUHSSE SppSffiDHQ TOF tnS pSm^S, tHa mSIlSF is. n^arc Tinsiiy. \ ^-\.! S^S'f ir'is; i.i 8;'S. ?~ii3si'1~lnn unrs^sr ^^511 Uyi! yUUSi j&.rf'ir'la r^f f^'i i.i^fiS ^rf..s^ U^ ^!l^''v^, i'h^ f..'^l~1%'i'its 1''^nr3 ).t 1-iS [•Si.Us-i^.'iy^ 1 '•TT^I '^* iJl irTSs^ 'U^iS. ;; s tn^ ' ;'?; i r^p'hlifin?sr hs^ rir?iv?>ri fnr difar^inn tn r&^nnnri^n?^ tn tr^'ist th^ natj^snf^r ?n 1 ^>^,t?W'^i ^:7^n:*rfE t^*-^ td^r ^i -^ i.^ -^^/^J'^ ^ « -^^ llr+^ ^I ^^ >;-?r^ •r < ^fllJ ^t6 ^Ji V i\^'d l^^i :1 <<^/ 'n^f^i •t>^-^ • ^*/^ i1^' i •i s ( i 1 ^^ ^^S»4£ i~"^[^ contlnij?=inG<L ssrvic^ sno. ar;?nt sll 'i.ngrSi roni inciuQiny Dyc^wdy^^ sno cin^r y^n^ius. ^: ^^ ;t±ll<'*l-^'<.< ^ ft °<'£/*•?•'^-7.^ •^-^.-^ '^l.^'f'^-^-y "^ ^S?d"s/^*3'?'?"h •]f^r^"t^^*^a':-^^^T^'^ 4w^t/S-L< •iy-^-f ^13 1 ^ ^ s ^/Ei ^S^i s-^^ ^--F ^ "•/ i< ^ons^Gusntlsi b^nsfits fiowina ^^5^/ fbwf^-f? .^^—:^'r^*-a^l^ ^^n } ^^"^Jt ^ 1^T - i^-^ 3 ;^' ^V "•:i
2. Briefly ststed, rslevant facts nscessary for determination of controversy invoivsd are that the peSitioner whlle work'ng as a Fo'est Gusrd wes •f^ ^p'/*^^^^'^*^^ r^L^^ ^^. sirssi^G un z^.^.zu^o un lus ^CGUSffiTioH ur corT'^ri'ssion ui QIT^HCS unQsr RRi'tinn 307 nf ths 'PC Vidfi nrrisr riateri 1 fi 1Q?i3 fAnnaYiirp P-I'] ^^S^&tUt E >u?U^ t^f LEi^ IF''u[. VS^JS UiUC?r UiSii.Siiw t /^.a^ ^^i-^ ^s.a^.r'L^ ^<r»-^^'^^?'^ /^-? j^.^^-^7*s:L^^=^^*-€^3^^:'^ r^T? .^b?^-^^^d^^h i ±-/^^^\vr t'.^, i W'Jf t--Ui ^isi:S /^ r^?t-^ qS ^/^sSjiS-^U^S aj^/at>i^';*'^tt*i f^ ,^*t " ^ffi/^?*^ p©IIIIGH6rWSS piSC6Q UHQSF SUSpBHS^OH. subjected to triai I H8 p8liT^OH8r WSS ^nBFBeHSr in S.T.NO.255/93 which culminated 'n CQnviction of fn-1 ? <^^ c<^. .^<" ['•*i.-^^ E r^ F^- ^r^ ,'**-J'^/^--1".^^-**^ ^' ?.^ ,i~t4"q'r^/*iF^^ ^^F' f Tp^ ^/S f^ Bdnt-i-*ta^ <?\/^./qi ^ T^'^-?**^ ^^^**:.-'^. pstitioner vide judgment of convictlon and order of sentence dated 13.7.1994. As a resuit of conyiction, the petitioner was terminated from servioe v'de orderaated 2.9.1996 (Annexurs P-2) underthe provision of Ruie 19 (i) cf th& Fvi.P. Civii Services (Classification, Controi & Appeai), Rules, 1966 (for short °Ru!es of 19G6"Y -An^in'2^ ^ - fh?s h^rinmonf nf - - ~ »N^ : •.^!^.-.'-^ t s i i-S'i ?. Vt ^ ~ - \^f ; 13.7.1994, the petitloner preferred an appeal before this Court reglstered as Crin'nai Appeal No.703/94. The said appeai was a'iowed vide , 0 ii«^ Ui'U'S1 r;nrll:^i'"Itinn ^nri '—f1--/'''.\:'S'-^^i^S r^rrt^r nf %;'snfs;nr:a n^fiKsrl •S'S':ii.'S; E l«i;CT.5.SS'^ i*-<'C; •<-/S "*-s ^ \^ . \^ ,i.^w s i^cs L:sy i i^rin?T'?ir!t r"??f?^d 1 3 7011 hv \A;hinh t'h^ fird:pr nf r;i^f^yifTJ'lr5H M\!?S,^ ravpT^^H •-i.iy^i; i .;^;i si •! 1f"<'0i3 :i C; V'^i -OSU £ snd the pstitioner was acauitted ofthe charQes. Thereafter, the pstitioner aoorosched the authorities to assume charoe of the office vice nis leiter ). i i;3 U? U:C S Us ^U; 3 v ;i</i.Si~>li .i^ 'y yv ? • '•i-/)' i , dated 13.4.2011. Tne petitioner repeated his representation on 19.4.2012 whlch aSso failed to evoke any 'esponse. Wheresfter, ?his petitlon hss 'l 1 filed. lilCU.
4. Short submission of iearned sen'or counse! is that ths pstitioner was terminated from service on account of his conviction without there beino any departmenta! enquiry or proof of any misconduct. Therefore, moment the conviction js set aside, the petitioner 's entitled to be treated fo be in cQntinuous service from the date of hls conviction and with erfect "om the said date ali benefits of pay, senio-ity and other servics benefits re "abte to be sranted to him bv respondents. Further submission is that as the petitioner has rstired upon stta'ning -ihe age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2009, therefors, the benefits of reiired Govt. sen/ant shouid aiss be extended to the pet'tloner. Per contra, iearned counsel for the State subm'ts that mere'y becsuse the petlt'oner has basn acquitted of crimina! charges, he is not sntilled to the time when petitioner was terminated, he sny beneflt because at stood convlcted. He further submits that the appsai of the petitioner was aSiowed only on 1.3.2011, much after the petitioner attained the age'of superannuation on 30th June, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitied to any direction to treat him in service from the date of termination tiil the date of his superannuation much iess any other reiief of back wages or any other benefit including retirai benefit. ^ !t is clear from order dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P-2) that the petitioner was terminated from service In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19 (i) of the Ru'es of 1966. The said provision confers power on the competent authority to terminate services of Govt. empioyee in the case of conviction on criminai charges. In such cases, ths services of a Govt. ^mployee can be term'nated without hoiding any departmentai enquiry and ino^pendent proof of any misconduct which slso constitute criminal ^ act. Therefore, the basis for termination of the petitioner was soleiy hls CQnviction by a criminai Court. Admittedly, vide order datsd 1.3.2011, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Appeilate Court/High Court. Thus, the very basis of termination oi the petitioner Is wiped away. 't Is not a case tha.t a depastmental enquir/ was also instituted in which any order of dismissai from seroce on aileaation of misconduct was passed aaainst the petitioner. in these circumstanees, the petitioner wouid have been entitied to reinstatement, but for he attaining the age of superannuation of 50 years OR 30tn June, therefore, cannot be directed to be reinstate in 2008. The petltioner, service at this. stage when he has already attained the age of superannuation. However, the effect of acquittal would relate back to the date of termination of his sen/ice and the oetitioner wiii have to be treated to be in continuous service from the date he was termlnated on account of conviction. At the same time, termination of the service of the petitioner was fuily justified as at the time when termination order was the petitioner stood convicted by the criminai Court yide passed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.7.1994. Th-s conviction remained in force till it was set aside by the appeiiate authority
1.3.2011. Therefore, in these circumstances, vide judgment not inciined to grant any benefit of back wages to the petitloner in respect ofthe period during which he remained out of empioyment on account of termination. Nevertheless the entire period sha!! be treated as period of service which vvouid entitle him to count the same for the purpose of other benefits inciuding retiral benefits as a retired Go'u't. servant^ i am sequentiy, the petitlon is aliowed in the manner and to the exte.nt ;ated above.
9. . No orders as to costs. »»tod»sls1 sd!'^ <;hri^
•Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocste with Shri Sumit Verma, counse' for the petitsoner. Shri Arun Sao, Go\'t. Advocate for the State. vVltn TH8 CDHSSHt 0s ES3m£u COUHSSE SppSffiDHQ TOF tnS pSm^S, tHa mSIlSF is. n^arc Tinsiiy. \ ^-\.! S^S'f ir'is; i.i 8;'S. ?~ii3si'1~lnn unrs^sr ^^511 Uyi! yUUSi j&.rf'ir'la r^f f^'i i.i^fiS ^rf..s^ U^ ^!l^''v^, i'h^ f..'^l~1%'i'its 1''^nr3 ).t 1-iS [•Si.Us-i^.'iy^ 1 '•TT^I '^* iJl irTSs^ 'U^iS. ;; s tn^ ' ;'?; i r^p'hlifin?sr hs^ rir?iv?>ri fnr difar^inn tn r&^nnnri^n?^ tn tr^'ist th^ natj^snf^r ?n 1 ^>^,t?W'^i ^:7^n:*rfE t^*-^ td^r ^i -^ i.^ -^^/^J'^ ^ « -^^ llr+^ ^I ^^ >;-?r^ •r < ^fllJ ^t6 ^Ji V i\^'d l^^i :1 <<^/ 'n^f^i •t>^-^ • ^*/^ i1^' i •i s ( i 1 ^^ ^^S»4£ i~"^[^ contlnij?=inG<L ssrvic^ sno. ar;?nt sll 'i.ngrSi roni inciuQiny Dyc^wdy^^ sno cin^r y^n^ius. ^: ^^ ;t±ll<'*l-^'<.< ^ ft °<'£/*•?•'^-7.^ •^-^.-^ '^l.^'f'^-^-y "^ ^S?d"s/^*3'?'?"h •]f^r^"t^^*^a':-^^^T^'^ 4w^t/S-L< •iy-^-f ^13 1 ^ ^ s ^/Ei ^S^i s-^^ ^--F ^ "•/ i< ^ons^Gusntlsi b^nsfits fiowina ^^5^/ fbwf^-f? .^^—:^'r^*-a^l^ ^^n } ^^"^Jt ^ 1^T - i^-^ 3 ;^' ^V "•:i
2. Briefly ststed, rslevant facts nscessary for determination of controversy invoivsd are that the peSitioner whlle work'ng as a Fo'est Gusrd wes •f^ ^p'/*^^^^'^*^^ r^L^^ ^^. sirssi^G un z^.^.zu^o un lus ^CGUSffiTioH ur corT'^ri'ssion ui QIT^HCS unQsr RRi'tinn 307 nf ths 'PC Vidfi nrrisr riateri 1 fi 1Q?i3 fAnnaYiirp P-I'] ^^S^&tUt E >u?U^ t^f LEi^ IF''u[. VS^JS UiUC?r UiSii.Siiw t /^.a^ ^^i-^ ^s.a^.r'L^ ^<r»-^^'^^?'^ /^-? j^.^^-^7*s:L^^=^^*-€^3^^:'^ r^T? .^b?^-^^^d^^h i ±-/^^^\vr t'.^, i W'Jf t--Ui ^isi:S /^ r^?t-^ qS ^/^sSjiS-^U^S aj^/at>i^';*'^tt*i f^ ,^*t " ^ffi/^?*^ p©IIIIGH6rWSS piSC6Q UHQSF SUSpBHS^OH. subjected to triai I H8 p8liT^OH8r WSS ^nBFBeHSr in S.T.NO.255/93 which culminated 'n CQnviction of fn-1 ? <^^ c<^. .^<" ['•*i.-^^ E r^ F^- ^r^ ,'**-J'^/^--1".^^-**^ ^' ?.^ ,i~t4"q'r^/*iF^^ ^^F' f Tp^ ^/S f^ Bdnt-i-*ta^ <?\/^./qi ^ T^'^-?**^ ^^^**:.-'^. pstitioner vide judgment of convictlon and order of sentence dated 13.7.1994. As a resuit of conyiction, the petitioner was terminated from servioe v'de orderaated 2.9.1996 (Annexurs P-2) underthe provision of Ruie 19 (i) cf th& Fvi.P. Civii Services (Classification, Controi & Appeai), Rules, 1966 (for short °Ru!es of 19G6"Y -An^in'2^ ^ - fh?s h^rinmonf nf - - ~ »N^ : •.^!^.-.'-^ t s i i-S'i ?. Vt ^ ~ - \^f ; 13.7.1994, the petitloner preferred an appeal before this Court reglstered as Crin'nai Appeal No.703/94. The said appeai was a'iowed vide , 0 ii«^ Ui'U'S1 r;nrll:^i'"Itinn ^nri '—f1--/'''.\:'S'-^^i^S r^rrt^r nf %;'snfs;nr:a n^fiKsrl •S'S':ii.'S; E l«i;CT.5.SS'^ i*-<'C; •<-/S "*-s ^ \^ . \^ ,i.^w s i^cs L:sy i i^rin?T'?ir!t r"??f?^d 1 3 7011 hv \A;hinh t'h^ fird:pr nf r;i^f^yifTJ'lr5H M\!?S,^ ravpT^^H •-i.iy^i; i .;^;i si •! 1f"<'0i3 :i C; V'^i -OSU £ snd the pstitioner was acauitted ofthe charQes. Thereafter, the pstitioner aoorosched the authorities to assume charoe of the office vice nis leiter ). i i;3 U? U:C S Us ^U; 3 v ;i</i.Si~>li .i^ 'y yv ? • '•i-/)' i , dated 13.4.2011. Tne petitioner repeated his representation on 19.4.2012 whlch aSso failed to evoke any 'esponse. Wheresfter, ?his petitlon hss 'l 1 filed. lilCU.
4. Short submission of iearned sen'or counse! is that ths pstitioner was terminated from service on account of his conviction without there beino any departmenta! enquiry or proof of any misconduct. Therefore, moment the conviction js set aside, the petitioner 's entitled to be treated fo be in cQntinuous service from the date of hls conviction and with erfect "om the said date ali benefits of pay, senio-ity and other servics benefits re "abte to be sranted to him bv respondents. Further submission is that as the petitioner has rstired upon stta'ning -ihe age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2009, therefors, the benefits of reiired Govt. sen/ant shouid aiss be extended to the pet'tloner. Per contra, iearned counsel for the State subm'ts that mere'y becsuse the petlt'oner has basn acquitted of crimina! charges, he is not sntilled to the time when petitioner was terminated, he sny beneflt because at stood convlcted. He further submits that the appsai of the petitioner was aSiowed only on 1.3.2011, much after the petitioner attained the age'of superannuation on 30th June, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitied to any direction to treat him in service from the date of termination tiil the date of his superannuation much iess any other reiief of back wages or any other benefit including retirai benefit. ^ !t is clear from order dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P-2) that the petitioner was terminated from service In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19 (i) of the Ru'es of 1966. The said provision confers power on the competent authority to terminate services of Govt. empioyee in the case of conviction on criminai charges. In such cases, ths services of a Govt. ^mployee can be term'nated without hoiding any departmentai enquiry and ino^pendent proof of any misconduct which slso constitute criminal ^ act. Therefore, the basis for termination of the petitioner was soleiy hls CQnviction by a criminai Court. Admittedly, vide order datsd 1.3.2011, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Appeilate Court/High Court. Thus, the very basis of termination oi the petitioner Is wiped away. 't Is not a case tha.t a depastmental enquir/ was also instituted in which any order of dismissai from seroce on aileaation of misconduct was passed aaainst the petitioner. in these circumstanees, the petitioner wouid have been entitied to reinstatement, but for he attaining the age of superannuation of 50 years OR 30tn June, therefore, cannot be directed to be reinstate in 2008. The petltioner, service at this. stage when he has already attained the age of superannuation. However, the effect of acquittal would relate back to the date of termination of his sen/ice and the oetitioner wiii have to be treated to be in continuous service from the date he was termlnated on account of conviction. At the same time, termination of the service of the petitioner was fuily justified as at the time when termination order was the petitioner stood convicted by the criminai Court yide passed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.7.1994. Th-s conviction remained in force till it was set aside by the appeiiate authority
1.3.2011. Therefore, in these circumstances, vide judgment not inciined to grant any benefit of back wages to the petitloner in respect ofthe period during which he remained out of empioyment on account of termination. Nevertheless the entire period sha!! be treated as period of service which vvouid entitle him to count the same for the purpose of other benefits inciuding retiral benefits as a retired Go'u't. servant^ i am sequentiy, the petitlon is aliowed in the manner and to the exte.nt ;ated above.
9. . No orders as to costs. »»tod»sls1 sd!'^ <;hri^