1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, found the petitioner guilty of having committed an act under Section 409 of the Penal Code for having misappropriation a sum of Rs. 9417.75 and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a finance of Rs. 1000/-. This conduct on the basis of which he was convicted, was found to be sufficient to render the retention of the petitioner in the National Seeds Corporation Ltd., undesirable. In addition to this, a departmental enquiry was also held. In this enquiry., it was found that the petitioner had embezelled a sum of Rs. 4039.20. Taking into consideration the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also the order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end. He was dismissed from service. An order to this effect was passed under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner was held not entitled to gratuity and was also deprived to the benefit of employers contribution towards Provident Fund. This order was passed on 26th May, 1977.

2. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction. The petitioner was acquitted. The judgment of acquittal was recorded on 26-12-1996 by the court of Session. After this, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent Corporation. He pointed out as he has been acquitted of the charge, therefore, he should be reinstated. As nothing material happened, he approached this Court. He submits that he is entitled to reinstatement because the very basis which led to his dismissal from service has ceased to exist.

3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was dismissed from service not only on the basis of conviction but also in pursuance of an enquiry held by the respondent employer. It is stated that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges. He was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.4039.20. It is accordingly submitted that even if that part of order which deals with taking into consideration the factum of conviction, is ignored, even then, the remaining order based on dismissal in consequence of departmental enquiry would survive the challenge made by the petitioner.

4. Before going into the controversy, it would be apt to notice one thing that when a judgment of conviction is recorded, it is not the ultimate order which is passed by the court which is relevant but it is the conduct which is to be taken note of. Such a view was expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case reported as Om Parkash Vs. The Director Postal Services (Posts and Telegraphs Deptt.) Punjab Circle, Ambala, AIR 1973 Punj 1. The aforementioned view of Punjab and Haryana High Court received a seal of approval from the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1975 SC 2216. The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway and another Vs. T.R. Challappan. Therefore, what was required to be seen when initial order was passed, was not the mere fact that the petitioner stood convicted but what was required to be seen was his conduct. This aspect of the matter was, however, not taken note of by the respondent employer. However, this may not put an end to the controversy. The other argument which has been pressed into service is that the petitioner was also found guilty in a departmental enquiry, therefore, that part of order requires to be gone into.

5. The limited argument that if several matter are taken into consideration and ultimately some of the matters are found to be irrelevant or legally sustainable, then that is not a ground for upsetting or quashing the order of punishment. See AIR 1969 SC 966 Railway Board Vs. Naranjan Singh. Therefore, the limited argument that even if that part of order which is based on conviction is ignored, even then the order of punishment can be sustained is required to be gone into.

6. In this regard, it would be apt to notice that a department

Click Here to Read the rest of this document