HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5791 / 1999
Manjeet Singh Matharu S/o Shri Kartar Singh Matharu, by Caste
Sikkh, Aged About 56 Years, Plot No. 196, Scheme No. 5, Mangal
Vihar, Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Personnel,, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Secretary, College Education,, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Akhil Simlote.
For Respondent(s) : Dr.A.S.Khangarot, Addl. Govt. Counsel for
respondents.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
21/02/2017
The
petitioner
was
arrested
in
a
criminal
case
registered against him under Sections 328, 376 and 511 IPC on
the basis of a FIR No.14/1993 registered against him on 18 th
August, 1993. The charge against was that he attempted to rape
his next door neighbour who is a married woman. On the basis of
the said FIR, departmental enquiry was also initiated against him.
While the departmental enquiry was pending, the petitioner was
convicted by the Special Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar
on 25th June, 1997 under Section 376/511 IPC and sentence to
three years RI and Rs. 1000/- fine. He was also convicted under
Sections 328/511 and sentence to one year RI and Rs. 500/- as
fine.
(2 of 3)
[CW-5791/1999]
(2)
The department of Personnel on the basis of such order
of conviction passed an order under Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958
(hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Rules of 1958’) dismissing him
from service in terms of the circular dated 31.12.1996.
(3)
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as departmental
enquiry was pending and it continues to remain pending, there
was no occasion to have resorted to provisions of Rule 19(1) of
the CCA Rules of 1958 and merely because there was a conviction
in the criminal case against which he has already filed an appeal,
the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service.
(4)
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the power contained under Rule 19(1) of the Rules
of 1958 is an independent power available to the Government. On
the basis of conviction in a criminal case decision to dismiss him
from service has been taken taking into consideration the gravity
of the offence for which the petitioner has been held guilty by a
competent Court of law. No interference is warranted.
It is
submitted that the mere pendency of the departmental enquiry
would not come in the way to the Government to take decision
under a separate provision.
(5)
Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court does
not find merit in the submissions raised by the petitioner.
It is
settled principle that under Article 311 of the Constitution of India
protection is not available if a person has been convicted in a
criminal case. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 is quoted as under :-
(3 of 3)
[CW-5791/1999]
“19. Special procedure in certain cases.–Notwithstanding
anything contained in rules 16, 17 and 18, (i) where a
penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground
of conduct which has led to him conviction on a criminal
charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not
reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in
the said rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that
in the interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to follow such procedure, the disciplinary
Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and
pass such orders as it deems fit. Provided that the
Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders
in any case in which such consultation is necessary. Note:–
If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable
to give any person a opportunity of showing cause under
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, the decision
thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss, or remove
such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be,
shall be subject to only one appeal to the next higher
authority.”
Thus, it is in in terms of the said Article of the
Constitution and is an independent rule having no connection to
the departmental enquiry proceedings which may be initiated
under Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. The umbrage
which the petitioner wants to take of the pendency of the
departmental Enquiry, therefore, would not be available to him as
he has been already convicted by a competent Court under
Section 376/511 and 328/511 IPC.
(6)
Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.
N.Gandhi/13