Ramdatt vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Bundi, whereby he has been dismissed from

service and has also challenged the Appellate order dated 22.01.2020, whereby the appeal has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to same charges for which criminal case was registered against the petitioner,

Departmental Enquiry was also conducted wherein the petitioner was punished with stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

The said order was upheld in appeal as well as in review. Thereafter in the criminal case, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 306

of IPC and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment dated 17.12.2018 by which the S.P. proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service on

the ground that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case. He had preferred a writ petition before this Court which was withdrawal with

liberty to file an appeal and thereafter, Appellate Authority has also upheld the order and rejected his appeal. He has thus, approached this Court

challenging both the orders as above and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not have been convicted twice with regard

to the same charges. Once Departmental Enquiry was already being conducted merely because he has been convicted for the same charges. The

petitioner could not have been dismissed from service.

Learned counsel submits that an application of mind should have been there before passing of an order of dismissal.

Learned counsel submits that order of dismissal is too harsh. I have considered the submission as above and find that the petitioner had been

departmentally proceeded under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for living adulterous life and also on account of the fact that the husband of the lady

committed suicide on coming to know about the adulterous relationship between the petitioner and the deceased wife. Punishment of stoppage of five

annual grade increments with cumulative effect was passed in the departmental proceedings. The same were never challenged before this Court and

have attained penalty. In the criminal case, the petitioner has been convicted of offence under Section 306 of IPC for abatement to commit suicide

and the concerned Court has sentenced him with a severe punishment of five years rigorous imprisonment. If a convict has already been given, the

only aspect which the Authority is required to consider is whether the conviction is in relation to offence of moral-turpitude or in taking into

consideration that the petitioner has committed misconduct of living an adulterous life which instigated the concerned deceased to commit suicide The

S.P. has opined that he has committed an adulterous act which amounts to moral-turpitude and accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from service

has been awarded by exercising power under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules. Such course adopted by the S.P. has been approved by the Appellate

Authority. In the opinion of this Court, the course adopted by the S.P. as well as the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or

unjustified. Rule 19 of the CCA Rules provides as under:

(1) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to him conviction on a criminal charge; or (2) where

the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the

said rules; or (3) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow such procedure, the

Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it may deem fit:

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary.

Note: If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give any person an opportunity of showing cause under clause (2) of Article 311 of

the Constitution, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss, or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall

be subject to only one appeal to the next higher authority.

Keeping in view the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner falls under 19(1) of the CCA Rules and the authority has a discretion to

take a decision accordingly.

Taking into consideration, the nature of offence for which the petitioner has been convicted, it cannot be said that he has not committed an offence

which is not of moral-turpitude.

In view therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed.

The writ petition is devoid of merits.

Accordingly Dismissed.