Service Law--Dismissal from service--Conviction in matrimonial dispute but matter was later compromised--Thus there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to impose the extreme punishment of dismissal

JUDGMENT

Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral):- Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of order dated 08.11.2011(Annexure P-7) vide which he was dismissed from service as Lineman, on account of his conviction under Section 498-A IPC. A direction has been sought for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and other admissible benefits.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Lineman on 20.05.1992 with erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board(for short, PSEB). Petitioner was absorbed in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited(for brevity, Corporation)(successor in interest of PSEB). It is stated that due to disturbance in his matrimonial life, there were multiple litigations going on. His wife filed a complaint for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against husband and parents-in-law in the Court. Father-in-law died during pendency of the proceedings.

3. Trial in the case culminated into conviction of the petitioner and his mother under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and they were awarded sentence of one year under both the heads vide judgment dated 02.08.2005 (Annexure P-1). Their conviction was maintained by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2011(Annexure P-2) as well as by this Court, except for reduction in period of sentence, which was reduced to the period already undergone qua his mother and nine months in respect of the petitioner vide judgment dated 22.12.2011(Annexure P-3). In the meanwhile, the respondent Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 08.11.2011(Annexure P-7) It is stated that later a compromise dated 28.12.2011(Annexure P-4 colly.) was effected between the parties. In the light of compromise, the petitioner was granted the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and he was released on probation by Hon’ble the Apex Court vide order dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-8).

4. It is stated that in the light of above developments, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 19.03.2012(Annexure P-9) and sought reinstatement into service. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2012(Annexure P-10). A legal notice dated 02.11.2013(Annexure P- 14) was served upon the respondents, but the same was not adverted to.

5. It is stated that under erroneous advice, the petitioner instead of filing a writ petition, instituted a civil suit on 19.02.2014(Annexure P-11). The same was later withdrawn on 20.04.2015(Annexure P-12 colly.) under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC with liberty to file a writ petition for seeking redressal of his grievances. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

6. It is stated that before dismissing the petitioner from service, the respondent Corporation failed to follow the service Rules as neither he has been afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice, proposing to impose major penalty of dismissal was served upon him. Rather, the punishment authority as well as appellate authority rejected his plea in a mechanical manner and failed to consider that it was only a matrimonial dispute on account of temperamental differences and has no nexus with his duties and he is entitled to a lenient view especially when the dispute ended peacefully with a compromise effected between the parties and the petitioner has been released on probation of good conduct by the Apex Court.

7. In the return, respondents No.2 to 4 admitted that the petitioner was their employee. But the claim raised by the petitioner is opposed and it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief after his conviction in a criminal case, involving moral turpitude and confirmation of his conviction by the Appellate as well as Revisional Court. The impugned orders are well reasoned and warrant no interference by this Court.

8. Replication, controverting the averments of the reply and reiterating those of petition, has been filed by the petitioner.

9. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsels at some