Conviction under Section 323 IPC does not warrant dismissal; absence of moral turpitude requires proportional disciplinary action.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“Therefore the petitioners pray for:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Farm Labourer held by him in ARS Prabhunagar by cancelling the order of suspension and also to release all the monetary benefits by considering the representations dated 22.02.2010, 23.07.2010, 11.02.2011 and 03.06.2011, made by the petitioner, the copies of which have been produced herewith and marked as Annexure G, Annexure L, Annexure R and Annexure S.

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the Enquiry report No.Deen (Kru)/Kri.Ma.V.Da/D.Rep/10-11 and recommendation of the third respondent, dated 24.01.2011, made by the third respondent, the copy of which has been produced at Annexure Q.

c) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No.AaKa/SiSha-5/Aa.Ma.Kra/517.B/11-12 dated 25.05.2011 by the second respondent- Administrative Officer, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-S.

d) Any other writ or direction which this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners by allowed this writ petition, with cost through out, in the ends of justice and equity.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents-University and perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner was working as a Farm Labourer in the respondent-University. On 14.01.2006, he was arrested pursuant to a FIR in Crime No.09/2006 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 , 452, 504 and 506 read with Section 134 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). In the said proceedings, one Sangayya arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioner – Mallayya was arrayed as accused No.2. It is a matter of record and undisputed fact that the petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2006 and was in judicial custody during the pendency of the proceedings in SC No.63/2006 before the Sessions Court. By judgment and order dated 29.08.2007, the Sessions Court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. Meanwhile, the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry with effect from 23.02.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 29.08.2007passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.63/2006, the petitioner/accused No.2 approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1794/2007, which was allowed and disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 09.12.2009. The said final order at Annexure-E is reads as hereunder;

“The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Shankarayya (deceased) was in love with one Manjula-CW.15. The appellant No.1(A.1), appellant No.2(A.2) are the brothers and CW. 15 is the daughter of A.2 who was running a grocery shop in the village. The deceased was visiting the shop and fell in love with CW15. A proposal was made by the accused to marry CW15. The accused were not willing for the proposal. The CW.15 informed the deceased that she is not willing to marry. The deceased felt frustrated, attempted to commit suicide by consuming sleeping pills.

In that regard he was admitted to hospital and successfully treated.

2) The deceased after discharge from the hospital was telling the people that since CW.15 refused to marry he attempted to commit suicide. The A.1 and A.2 did not like the conduct of the deceased giving publicity of his love to the people. On 14-01-2006 at 07- 00 a.m., the A.1 and A.2 accosted the deceased. A2 abused