The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination of service based on conviction can be justified if the offence involves moral turpitude and exceeds the right of private defence.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

i. That, the impugned order dated 12-5-2018 (Annexure P/3), 3-4-2019 (Annexure P/2) and 14-2-2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice. ii. That, the respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all the consequential benefit or in alternative remand back to the respondent to consider afresh the stability of the petitioner on the basis of the merits and not only because of the mere conviction in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was working on the post of Jail Guard. He was tried in a criminal case and ultimately he was convicted. The services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 12-5-2018 passed by Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhopal on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by judgment and sentence dated 8-12-2017 passed by Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act), Guna in S. T. No. 1/2010. It is submitted that against the judgment of his conviction the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 6068/2017 and his sentence has been suspended. After the conviction of the petitioner, a suo motu enquiry was initiated and the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the basis of his conviction. The petitioner thereafter filed a departmental appeal against the order dated 12-5-2018 and the said appeal was also dismissed by impugned order dated 3-4-2019 passed by Director General of Prisoner and Correctional Services, Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application before the Jail Department and the said review application has also been dismissed by order dated 14-2-2020.

3. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent authorities have terminated the services of the petitioner without considering the merits of the matter. It is submitted that a person cannot be terminated merely on the ground of his conviction and the authorities must consider the nature of offence as well as the allegations made against the delinquent officer and also that whether the offence involves moral turpitude or not. No such finding has been given and thus it is submitted that the order of termination is bad. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 7-1-2020 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 14570/2009, Ram Kishan vs. State of U. P. and others.

4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that there is a material difference between suspension of sentence and stay of conviction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the findings of conviction has been stayed. Furthermore it is clear from the judgment passed by the Criminal Court, that there were serious allegations against the petitioner of causing multiple injuries to the injured Khilan and Veer Singh. The injuries were caused by means of a Farsa on head and shoulder of Veer Singh and on different parts of body of Khilan. There are allegations of humiliating the injured for the reason that they belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As per the MLC report of Khilan, one incised wound was found on upper part of right hand, one incised wound was found on right ear, two incised wounds were found on left leg, two incised wounds were found on skull. Similarly Khilan had also sustained fracture of right fibula bone, left radius and ulna bone, as well as fracture of parietal bone. Khilan was hospitalized and he was operated upon.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Ram Kishan (supra) it has been held as under : –

9. In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 S