Mohan Lal Sharma vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination on the ground of conviction vide order dated 14.02.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 2005.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Primary Teacher in BC Category in the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 at Primary School, Dumri Circle-3 vide memo No. 2317 dated 29.11.2006. During his service tenure, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 14.02.2018, passed in S.T. No. 296 of 2005, under Sections 147/148/302/149 IPC. The charges against the petitioner was that he was a member of an unlawful assembly of more than 12 persons at the time of murder of one Dular Mahto. In view of the said charges, the petitioner was convicted. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said judgment, which was numbered as Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2018 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 09.04.2018, was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of the bail granted to the petitioner, petitioner came-out of jail on 13.04.2018 and thereafter, submitted his representation before the respondent-authorities to allow him to join his services. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his services on 11.06.2018 but subsequently, he was terminated from the services on 09.07.2018.

Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court challenging the said order of termination.

Mr. Sameer Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that even before termination, the petitioner was not issued a show-cause notice. Learned counsel takes shelter of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and submits that no such person as mentioned in Article 311 (1) shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondent-authorities suffers from an inherent defect of non-application of judicial mind and is devoid of any cogent reason or consideration and also against the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 17. It is further argued that since the Appeal of the petitioner is pending in the Court, the respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner till final outcome of the criminal appeal.

Though no counter-affidavit has been filed, however, Mr. Anoop Kumar Agarwall, AC to learned GA-V vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. The law is very clear on the point of conviction, which speaks that a suo moto order of termination can be passed by the authorities concerned. The ground of natural justice is not attracted in the instant case, as the petitioner's service has been terminated on the ground of conviction and not on the basis of any regular departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further argues that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such, there is no illegality or any infirmity in terminating the petitioner from his services.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order of termination of the petitioner, as he has been convicted in a criminal case. The order of termination has been passed on the ground of conviction. The pendency of the criminal appeal cannot be a ground for reinstatement of the petitioner in the service. Taking shelter of Article 311 of the Constitution by the petitioner is totally misconceived. Petitioner has not been terminated in a regular departmental proceeding. The sole ground of termination is purely on conviction and as such, there is no any illegality or infirmity in the order of termination.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.