ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2023 by which petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has been convicted for offence under Sections 420, 409/120B, 109 of IPC and under Section 6 of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan. Adhiniyam, 2000 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 5 months R.I.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after his conviction i.e. by judgment dated 28th of April, 2023 passed in S.T. No. 200074/2014, he was sent to jail but by order dated 22.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6444/2023, his sentence has been suspended. Therefore, he filed an application on 05.10.2023 for his reinstatement on the ground that his sentence has been suspended but no heed has been paid. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-P/3) be quashed or in the alternative, respondent No. 4 be directed to decide his representation dated 05.10.2023.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted by counsel for State that the allegation against petitioner was that by alluring the innocent depositors, he persuaded, them to deposit their hard earned money in a company which was illegally floated without obtaining banking licence from the Reserve Bank of India and ultimately, the said amount was misappropriated. Since, the offence allegedly committed by petitioner involves a moral turpitude, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service. Further it is submitted that the case in hand is duly covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of B.S. Saiyam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, decided on 9th of October, 2023 in W.P. No. 25137/2023.

4. Heard counsel for parties.

5. Article 311 (2) of Constitutional of India reads as under :-

“311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply—

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.”

6. The State Government has issued a circular dated 08.02.1999 and 26.05.1998 which reads as under:-