Order

30/01/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.07.2007 passed by the respondent-department by which appointment/selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on account of criminal case lodged against the petitioner.

2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 447 of IPC and he has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 341 & 447 of IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties, but for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, a confession was made by the petitioner, hence, the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, “the Act of 1958”) was granted to him and he was released on admonition. Counsel submits that such act of the petitioner amounts to misconduct and he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Banking Assistant on two years probation basis vide order dated 13.11.2006 and thereafter, his services were terminated by the respondents vide impugned order dated 14.07.2007 solely on the count that he was convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and was admonished, and such act of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory to remain in service in terms of clause 8 of his appointment order.

6. Perusal of the order dated 26.10.2022 indicates that in the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner, the parties settled their dispute and on the basis of the compromise between the parties, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges under Sections 447, 323 & 341 of IPC and because of the confession made by the petitioner for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, he was admonished in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1958. This was the sole reason for terminating the petitioner from service.

7. The order dated 26.10.2022 indicates that the order of admonition was passed in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1958, and hence, the petitioner would certainly be entitled to get the benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958 which specifically lays down that when a person is found guilty of an offence and is dealt with under the provisions of Sections 3 or 4, he shall not suffer any disqualification attached to his conviction.

8. In view of the above, the admonition order of the petitioner in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1958 would not attach any disqualification in the way of the petitioner to continue in service. This fact is not in dispute that there was no suppression on the part of the petitioner at the time of submission of the application form, hence under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.07.2007 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Needless to observe that the needful exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.

10. Since the petitioner has remained unrepresented before this Court, he is not aware of passing of this order, Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the residential address of the petitioner mentioned in the memo of cause title for intimation/

information.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /89 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)