Advocates:
['AMIT MATHUR', '', 'SUDHIR GUPTA', 'ABHINAV KASLIWAL', 'ARPIT SRIVASTAVA DY G C']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 322 / 2015

Ramdayal Verma Son of Shri Tunda Ram, Aged About 58 Years,

124 Ayodhya Nagar, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Animal

& Husbandry Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director, Directorate of Animal & Husbandry, Jaipur

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) :

Sh. Abhinav Kasliwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Sh. Arpit Srivastava, Dy. GC

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

13/09/2017

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging order dt.15.02.2011 wherein the petitioner was

removed from service on account of his conviction u/Sec.498-A &

304-B IPC by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 1, Jaipur

District Jaipur by order dt.18.12.2007. The petitioner had

preferred an appeal and same was also dismissed vide order

dt.25.06.2014.

The petitioner has placed reliance on judgment passed by

Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.

5632/2007 Jeth mal (since deceased) & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., dt.13.02.2017 and counsel for the petitioner

requests that the case of the petitioner is also required to be

governed by the same principle.

(2 of 4)

[CW-322/2015]

On 26.04.2017 the Court asked the learned counsel for the

State-respondents to seek instructions in this regard.

Counsel for the petitioner who has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dt.13.02.2017

submits that the once conviction u/Sec.304-B has been set aside

and he has been acquitted, only on the basis of offence

u/Sec.498-A, the order of termination of service is bad the

relevant part of the judgment in the case of Jeth Mal passed in SB

Civil Writ Petition No.5632/2007 is quoted as under:-

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and

perusing record of the case alongwith the

precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion

that the question of penalty, before invoking

Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958, is to be

subject to the basis of passing such order. Once

the basis of passing the impugned order was

the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC and

sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment

and the same has been quashed & set aside by

this Court, then it was imperative upon the

respondents to revisit the impugned order of

punishment and take the perspective into

account that the major offence which was cause

of conviction and which was foundation of the

order of termination from service, has been

removed by the competent court. The

petitioner’s husband had rendered a long

service from 30/04/1971 to 10/10/2001. It

would not be appropriate to send the case back

to the disciplinary for reconsidering the question

of penalty under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of

1958 but in view of the fact that the petitioner’s

husband, who was an employee and no longer

survives, therefore, this Court is left with no

other option but to apply its own mind in the

given circumstances. This Court is of the

opinion that if the petitioner’s husband has been

acquitted from Section 304-B of IPC vide order

dt.10/03/2004 while maintaining the sentence

under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, there

(3 of 4)

[CW-322/2015]

should be a reduction in the quantum of

punishment proportionately.

Counsel for the respondents submits that on principle, the

initial order which was passed on the basis of conviction

u/Sec.304-B & 498-A requires to be re-visited by the authorities.

However, counsel for the respondents submits that in the case of

Jeth Mal the Court had substituted the quantum of punishment as

the petitioner in that case has passed away and the be