IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CM-2522 & 2523-LPA-2019

in/and LPA No.1136 of 2019

Decided on: 19.04.2022

State of Haryana and others

... Appellants

Versus

Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh

... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:

Ms. Mamta Singla, DAG, Haryana

for the appellants.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate

for the respondent.

G.S. Sandhawalia

, J.(Oral)

CM-2522-LPA-2019

Application for condoning the delay of 45 days in refiling the

appeal has been filed.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by

affidavit of the official, the same is allowed. Delay of 45 days in refiling

the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM-2523-LPA-2019

Application for condoning the delay of 50 days in filing the

appeal has been filed.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by

affidavit of the official, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the

appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

SAILESH RANJAN

2022.04.27 15:24

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-2522 & 2533-LPA-2019 in/and

LPA No.1136 of 2019

-2-

LPA-1136-2019

The State is in appeal against the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 04.12.2018 passed in CWP No.15068 OF 2017

'Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and

others', wherein the order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-5)

dismissing the writ petitioner, respondent herein, on account of

conviction recorded by the Criminal Court, was quashed.

The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that

the conviction as such was under Section 326 IPC and, therefore, it

was not a case of moral turpitude. Reliance was placed upon the

Policy dated 17/26.03.1975 (Annexure P-7) to the extent that the

policy itself showed that persons convicted for moral turpitude

should not be taken or retained in government service. Resultantly, it

was held that dismissing the petitioner who was working as a clerk

with the Haryana Roadways without any inquiry from the police

department and by resorting to the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b)

of the Constitution of India, was not justified. The learned Single

Judge had placed reliance upon the judgment passed in CWP

No.2685 of 2009 'Jai Singh Vs. Haryana State Cooperative Apex

Bank Ltd. and another' decided on 01.05.2014.

Counsel for the State has vehemently submitted that the

provisions of Article 311 do not as such distinguish or make any

such provision of moral turpitude and, therefore, the judgment is not

sustainable.

SAILESH RANJAN

2022.04.27 15:24

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-2522 & 2533-LPA-2019 in/and

LPA No.1136 of 2019

-3-

Mr. Lohan has submitted that the judgment relied upon

in Jai Singh (supra) was upheld by the Division Bench in

LPA No.931 of 2014 decided on 29.05.2014 and, thus, submitted

that the order of the learned Single Judge is justified.

The issue is no longer res integra, though the authority

while dismissing the writ petitioner as such had referred to his role

regarding the act as such, whereby he had been convicted and the

fact that he had given Gandasi blow upon the body of Mangal Singh

and come to the conclusion that such type of person should not be

retained in the Government service and retaining such persons

would have adverse impact on the functioning of the department as

well as on the co-employees.

The provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of

India read as under:-

“311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of

persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a

State.

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of

the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a

State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall

be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to

that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such