Kuldeep Sharma vs State and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner who was appointed as teacher in the year 1988, was removed from service on 19.5.1993 on account of criminal case filed under Sections 471 and 420 IPC and the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court itself on 19.3.2002. The petitioner has approached this Court after eight years, on 22.2.2010, and is seeking relief of reinstatement on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal trial by the competent court.

So far as to explain the delay of 8 years, it has been submitted that the petitioner submitted several representations to the competent authority and the competent authority should have restored the position by withdrawing the order of removal dated 19.5.1993. It is also submitted that even if that plea is not accepted, the petitioner can be denied back wages and salary of that period, but total relief may not be denied.

It is clear from the facts referred above itself that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1993 and his criminal case was decided by the criminal court by judgment dated 19.3.2002. The petitioner approached this Court as he can afford to approach because of the reason that since 1993 till 2010, he afforded to live without that appointment and he can wait for 8 years more for his reinstatement from the years when according to him, he became entitled to reinstatement.

The conduct of the petitioner is very relevant in such a matter where the employee remained out of service for a very long period and by now for 17 years, he was facing the criminal trial. He had no grievance if he has been removed from service if he would have been convicted by the criminal case as he independently did not challenge the removal order dated 19.5.1993 for any other reason. From 2002, if he was without any employment and the Government servants are approaching the Court on the plea of violation of the fundamental right on account of non-granting of even single selection grade, then the petitioner, who was denied appointment and his source of livelihood, has approached after 8 years which is very relevant fact which cannot be ignored and requires to be taken more seriously because it is a matter relating to public exchequer also. It is a clear case where the petitioner wants to take advantage of his own wrong and wants all remaining service benefits which may include post retiral benefits after doing other work for such long period. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner totally dis-entitles him to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.