The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proportionality and reasonableness in cases of termination based on criminal convictions, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the offense and its impact on the employee's employment.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of termination Annexure P-4 dated 6-10-2007 passed by the District Education Officer, District Morena, whereby the Petitioner was terminated because of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that as per the prosecution story, it is apparent that in the family dispute the said offence was registered against the Petitioner under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the trial Court convicted him and directed to undergo the sentence of one month and fine of Rs. 200/-. On filing an appeal before the Appellate Court, the conviction was maintained but looking to the facts and circumstances, imprisonment was set aside and only the fine was imposed.

3. Shri K. S. Tomar, learned Senior Advocate has placed a reliance of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Hazarilal : (2008) 3 SCC 273 and contends that the said offence does not involve the moral turpitude. However, looking to the nature of the offence and in the circumstances in which it has taken place, the termination of the services of the Petitioner is unwarranted. The Court in the similar situation dealt with the issue and held that in all the cases bearing the sentence by way of fine to the employee is not required to be removed abruptly. However, prayer is made to quash the order Annexure P-4 passed by the District Education Officer, Morena.

4. Shri Devendra Choubey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate of the Respondents/State contends that it is a case wherein the conviction has not been set-aside and the sentence has only been set-aside by the Appellate Court, but the amount of fine of Rs. 200/- has been upheld. In such circumstances the finding with respect to conviction has not been set aside, however, the authority competent has not committed any error in passing the order to terminate the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Shankar Dass v. Union of India, the issue of termination has been dealt with and directed the Respondents to consider the case of the employee in accordance with the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Thus, the Apex Court in view of the judgment of Shankar Dass v. Union of India and further relying upon various other English judgments the said issue has been dwell upon. The observation which has taken note in the judgments is reproduced as under:

10. Despite the said observation Shankar Dass was dismissed from service. This Court held thus:

7. It is to be lamented that despite these observations of the learned Magistrate, the Government chose to dismiss the Appellant in a huff, without applying its mind to the penalty which could appropriately be imposed upon him insofar as his service career was concerned. Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution confers on the Government the power to dismiss a person from service 'on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge'. But, that power, like every power, has to be exercised fairly, justly, and reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Consi