Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VANDANA KASREKAR, J.
Raju Ganesh Kamble - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 13722 of 2014
Decided On : 12-10-2017
Quo Warranto - Appointment Disqualification - M.P. Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1968 - Rule 10, Rule 19(1) - The court discussed the disqualification for appointment on the post as per Rule 10 of the M.P. Municipal Services Rules, 1968 and the provision for termination of service if an employee is convicted in a criminal case as per Rule 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil (Services, Classification and Control) Rules, 1966.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No. 5, who was convicted of criminal offenses and subsequently reinstated in service. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 5's conviction should disqualify her from continuing in the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that respondent No. 5's conviction was not stayed or set aside, and as per the statutory rules, a person convicted in a criminal offense is disqualified from continuing in services. The court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 5, directing her suspension.
Issues: The main issue was the disqualification of respondent No. 5 for appointment on the post and her reinstatement in service despite the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 10 of the M.P. Municipal Services Rules, 1968, which provides disqualification for appointment on the post, and Rule 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil (Services, Classification and Control) Rules, 1966, which mandates termination of service if an employee is convicted in a criminal case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 5, directing the respondents to place her under suspension.
The petitioner has filed the present petition in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No. 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Council, Nepa Nagar. He was appointed as Sub Engineer in the services of Municipal Council Nepa Nagar. Respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 26-7-2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 has been arrested by the police for the offences under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Municipal Officer seek guidance from the Divisional Deputy Director, Urban Administration. The Deputy Director wrote that action under Rule 53 of the M.P. Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1968 be taken against the petitioner (sic : Respondent No. 5). Accordingly, the CMO has passed the order dated 23-8-2005 thereby placing respondent No. 5 under suspension. Thereafter respondent No. 5 was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur vide judgment dated 26-8-2008 with imprisonment of life. Against the said judgment, respondent No. 5 filed a criminal appeal No. 1931/2008 and in the said appeal this Court vide order dated 18-2-2009 has enlarged her on bail. Thereafter, she made an application on 12-5-2012 for revocation of the order of suspension and reinstatement. On the basis of legal opinion, Municipal Council has reinstated respondent No. 5 in the services. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 was discharging the public duty without any legal authority. He submits that respondent No. 5 was convicted by the competent criminal Court and her conviction has not been stayed or set aside by this Court in the criminal appeal. She has only been released on bail and, therefore, looking to her conviction, she could not be reinstated. He further submits that Rule 10 of the said Rules provides disqualification for appointment on the post and as per sub-rule (2)(b) of the said Rules, she has not entitled to continue on the post. He further relied on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Lalan Thakur v. State of M.P., 2009 (1) M.P.L.J. 138 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Assn., (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2).
4. Respondent No. 4 has filed reply and in the said reply, it has stated that respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill. On the basis of police report dated 26-7-2005 respondent No. 5 has been arrested by the police for committing the offence under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been placed under suspension on 23-8-2005. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 was convicted by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 26-8-2007 with imprisonment of life for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment, she filed an appeal before the High Court and she has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Thereafter, she submitted an application for subsistence allowance before the labour Court and vide order dated 18-2-2009 directed to payment the allowance to her. Thereafter, she submitted an application for reinstatement and revocation of the order of suspension on 12-5-2012. In pursuance to the application submitted by respondent No. 5, Chief Municipal Officer has referred the matter to the Advocate for legal opinion. The Advocate has given his opinion that the order of suspension can be revoked. Accordingly, the matter was placed before President-in-Council for consideration. The President-in-Council directed that necessary guidance may be sought from the Government. The Deputy Director thereafter wrote to the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal for guidance vide memo dated 11-10-2012. The Director wrote to the CMO dated 19-3-2013
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
