ORDER

Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby, the order of dismissal dated 10.07.2000 is maintained after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Labour in the year 1982 in the respondent establishment. The petitioner possessed the qualification of Mechanical I.T.I. He was regularized in March, 1983 on Class-IV post as a Mechanic. Thereafter, in the year 1985, he was promoted as Technician Grade –III. In 1987, he was again promoted as Technician Grade-II. In September, 1994, some family dispute arose which lead to registration of a criminal case under Section 307 of IPC against the petitioner and he was kept in police custody for more than 48 hours. The petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced for three years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- by the Sessions Court, Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No.60/1995 vide order dated 07.06.2000. As a result, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 10.07.2000 under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1965’).

Against the order dated 07.06.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.1509/2000 and the same was also dismissed. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2126/2011. The Apex Court, vide order dated 16.11.2011, upheld the conviction recorded by the Courts below and reduced the sentenced awarded to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

5. Further, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.401/2012 which was later on withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a Writ Petition No.1605/2018 before this Court on the ground that principle of natural justice was not followed. This Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023, quashed the order of dismissal dated 10.07.2000, directing the disciplinary authority to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, keeping in mind that punishment under Rule 9 need not be removal or dismissal from service but can be of lesser major penalty.

6. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the disciplinary authority, vide its order dated 17.04.2023, after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, maintained the order of dismissal on the ground that the Apex Court, in the case of Hikmat Ali Khan vs. Ishwar Prasad Arya, AIR 1997 SCC 864 and also in the case of Raghvendra Kumar vs. Prabal Kumar 2014 (13) SCC 354, has specifically held that conviction under Section 307 of IPC would amount to moral turpitude. Moreover, the petitioner had suppressed the vital information with regard to his conviction, therefore, suppression of vital information would render the appointment of the petitioner invalid.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition challenging the order impugned dated 17.04.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the disciplinary authority in rejecting the oral request of the petitioner with regard to quantum of punishment is per-se illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and thus, the same is liable to the set aside. The respondents have failed to assign any reason for not considering the question of quantum of penalty and have totally ignored the observations made by the Court that some lesser punishment may also be imposed. The petitioner ought to have been reinstated in service by imposing a lesse