High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 603/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Kaliabor, Nagaon, terminating the service o f the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of Goroimari (Boys) L.P. School because of his conviction in a criminal case.
Legal Reasoning
2. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Assam, r epresenting the respondents. I have considered the entire materials on record. 3. The petitioner while was serving as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid s chool, he was involved in a criminal case, which was eventually registered and n umbered as Sessions Case No. 10(N)/92. The case emanated from Kaliabor P.S. Cas e No. 158/89 registered under Section 147/148/447/325/324/436/302 IPC. Charge-s heet having been submitted against the accused persons, including the petitioner , and upon framing of charge, the trial started and eventually the learned Sessi ons Judge, Nagaon, vide his judgement of conviction dated 18.07.1993 convicted t he accused persons including the petitioner under Section 304(Pt-II)/436/324/323 /34 IPC and sentenced, each of the accused persons, to R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 304 (Pt-II)/34 IPC. The accused persons were also sentenc ed to suffer, for their conviction under Section 436/34 IPC, R.I. for 4 years an d to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and, in default to further R.I. for 6 months e ach and, for their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC, each of the accused pers ons was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years. Further, for their conviction u nder Section 323/34 IPC, each of the accused persons was sentenced to suffer R.I . for 6 months, the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, an appeal being Crl. App eal No. 296/97 was preferred in which the petitioner was held guilty of the offe nce under Section 304(Pt-II) and 324 IPC the sentence was reduced to 3 years of R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default thereof, R.I. for 6 months, and R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default R.I. for 3 months respectively. In the appeal, the Appellate Court made the following observations in respect of the petitioner: (cid:28)These two witnesses have stated that Kamal along with other had assaulted Haric haran Suklal and others with dao and lathi. In view of the clear statements on oath by PW8 to the effect that Kamal had assaulted Suklal on the head with a lat hi, I am of the view that the said act can be safely attributed to Kamal in view of the other evidence on record, omission to that effect in the police statemen t of PW8 nothwithstanding. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of a ccused-appellant Kamal under Section 304 Part-II and 324 IPC has to be maintaine d. (cid:29) 5. Pursuant to the said judgement and order dated 17.02.2004, passed in Crl . Appeal No. 296/1997, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order date d 25.05.2006 terminating the service of the petitioner in view of his conviction in the criminal case. Although the judgement in the Crl. Appeal was passed on 17.02.2004, it took more than two years to pass the impugned order. In the mean time, the petitioner continued to receive subsistence allowance firstly @ 50% an d, thereafter, @ 75%. In fact, his subsistence allowance bill was cleared up to February, 2006 by the Block Elementary Education Officer. Referring to the jud gement of conviction on appeal, the disciplinary authority terminated the servic e of the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been convicted under Section 304 (Pt-II)/324 IPC, but in abse nce of any immoral perpetual involvement, the disciplinary authority ought to ha ve considered that aspect of the matter instead of terminating his service merel y on the ground of conviction. In this connection, Mr. Kataki has placed relian ce on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1985 SC 1416 (Union of India an d another vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR). Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Assam, on t 7. he other hand submits that since the petitioner has been convicted on a murder c harge and considering the fact that he was engaged in teaching in L.P. School, t here is nothing wrong in terminating his service. As regards the decision on wh ich Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, he su bmits that there can not be any mechanical interpretation of a judgement and tha t the ratio of a decision will have to be understood in the background of the fa ct situation of the given case. I have given my conscious consideration to the submissions made by the l 8. earned counsel for the parties and I have also considered the entire materials o n record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been convicted for an off ence under Section 304(Pt-II)/324 IPC. As to what was his conduct leading to th e commission of the offence, conviction thereafter and the sentence imposed have been noted above. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has also plac ed reliance on a Single Bench decision reported in 2000(3) GLT 519 (Har Kumar Da s vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and ors). It was a case relating to LPG dist ributorship for which the petitioner therein was an aspirant. When his candidat ure was not considered on the ground of his conviction for the offence of murder , the petitioner approached the High Court. It was held in Har Kumar Das (supra ) that such conviction cannot entitle the authority to reject the candidature of the petitioner. 10. In the instant case, we are concerned with a primary school teacher, who has been convicted under Section 304(Pt-II)/324 IPC. Much have been emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 127 of Tulsiram Patel (supra) so as to argue that the authority mu st take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case before imposi ng the penalty of removal from service on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. The fact that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 304(Pt-II) 11. /324 IPC is not in dispute. The particular fact leading to his conviction and s entence has been referred to above. If the petitioner was involved in an offenc e leading to his conviction under Section 304(Pt-II) and 324 IPC with 3 years of imprisonment along with fine, the disciplinary authority was within its compete nce and jurisdiction to dispense with his service, more particularly when he was a school teacher engaged in teaching of the children. The very fact that the d isciplinary authority, in its impugned order, has referred to the various facts including the judgement of conviction of the Appellate Court dated 17.02.2004, w ould go to show that there was proper application of mind while passing the impu gned order dated 25.05.2006. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 25. 05.2006 (Annexure 12) passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the servi ce of the petitioner. Consequently, no direction can be issued for reinstatemen t of the petitioner in service. 13. as to costs.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without, however, any order