G L RAHATE Vs. ALL INDIA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER
LAWS(APH)-1972-9-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 01,1972

G.L.RABATE Appellant
VERSUS
ALL INDIA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The undisputed facts leading tc the filing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ in the natre of mandamus or any other direction declaring the Memorandum contained in AP/Est/Inq/GLR/ 72 dated 4-1-1972 as illegal and void may be briefly stated:
(2.) The petitioner now was an Upper Division Clerk in the Director State Office, All India Kbadi and Village Industries Commissioner, Hyderabad was arrested on 1-6-1970 for allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 341 and 323 I.P.C., and later released on bail. He was therefore placed under suspension under Regulation 30 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner (Condct, Discipline and Appeal Regulation) by proceedings No. EST/Confdl/GLR/ 70-71 dated 1st July 1970. Later.be. along with two others, was proseculed before ths 6th City Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. 936 of 1970 and was convicted for an offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and senened to pay a fine of Rs 100/- He was also convicted for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. On appeal, the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 16-8-71 acquitted him of those charges and set aside the sentences passed against him but convicted him for an offeace punishable under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act The petitioner, however, continued to be under suspension from service and thereafter was served with a Memorandum No. AP/EST/JNQ GLR/72 dated 4-1-1972 calling upon him to show cause why an enquiry into the charges based on the allegations detailed in the enclosed charge sheet should not be held under Regulation 36 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1961.
(3.) It is argued by Mr. A. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly that since the prosecution against the positioner has ended in admonition of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, he is entitled to reinstatement in service, and secondly, that the very issuance of a notice under Regulation 26 of the Kbadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1961 discloses that the appointing authority has already decided to impose a major punishment and therefore the show cause notice is illegal and void and deserves to be quashed, In order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary to read Regulation No. 30 which is as follows: "30: Procedure on arrest: An employee, who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be considered as under suspension from the date of his arrest and shall be allowed payment admissible to an employee under suspension under the Commission's Regulations during the period of suspension. The employee shall immediately inform the Commission if heis arrested for debt or criminal charge." From the above provisions of Regulation 30, it is clear that no sooner than an employee of the Kbadi and Village Industries Commission is arrested on a criminal charge, he would be considered as under suspension from the date of bis arrest. Though in the case of the present petitioner, an express order intimating him that he was placed under suspension has been made oa 1-7-1970 in fact, no separate order is necessary. The Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, however, do not provide as to when this suspension would come to an end. If after arrest, an employee is prosecuted and he is committed to prison for debt or for. a criminal offence, provision is made under Regulation 31 for his dismissal from service and also for his reinstatement if the order of conviction is set aside and the employee is acquitted by a superior court. Regulation 31 reads as follows: "31. Procedure on conviction: An employee, who is committed-to prison for debt or is convicted for a criminal offence shall be liable to be dismissed from the date of the Judgment/order. The employee would, however, be reinstar ted in service and dismissal order cancelled, if the employee is acquitted by a Higher Court.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.