RAJENDRA KUMAR NAGVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come before this Court challenging the order dated 25.10.2010, by which it is communicated to the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner for his reinstatement in service is rejected. THE order was already communicated to the petitioner after the decision on 25.8.2007, which was duly served in the house of the petitioner on 12.9.2007, therefore, reconsideration of the said claim is not permissible. In fact, the petitioner, who was enrolled as a Constable in the services of the respondent in the year 1987 in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, was prosecuted in a Criminal Case in the year 2000. In the said Criminal Case registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, it was alleged that the petitioner has obtained the employment by manipulating the record. It was further alleged that there was manipulation in the official records also, inasmuch as, the service roll of the petitioner was tampered with. After the full dressed trial, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.791/2004 on 8.11.2004. Before even conviction of the petitioner, services of the petitioner were terminated on 6.9.2000 holding that the petitioner has obtained the employment on the basis of a forged mark sheet of Higher Secondary for the year 1986. Since the petitioner was convicted, he filed an appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, by passing a judgment in the Criminal Appeal No.121/2004 on 7.8.2006 acquitted the petitioner. It was categorically held that the document relating to mark sheet was said to be included in the record in the year 2000. THE copy of said mark sheet itself was issued in the year 2000 and as such, how it could be alleged that the petitioner had obtained the employment in the year 1987 on the basis of the mark sheet issued on 18.2.2000. Thus, it was held that the petitioner has committed no offence and he was acquitted. After the acquittal, the petitioner moved the application for his reinstatement, but it was said that since the services of the petitioner were already terminated on account of passing of an order by the competent authority, there was no question of his reinstatement in service after his acquittal by the appellate Court. This being so, the petitioner has come before this Court praying that the order of termination of his services be quashed and the direction for his reinstatement may be issued.

(2.) IN response to the writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents contending that some sort of enquiry was conducted. After getting the enquiry, it was found that the school authorities have certified that the mark sheet so produced by the petitioner was not tallying with the record of the school and as such, it was held that the petitioner has obtained the employment on the basis of a forged mark sheet. This being so, the services of the petitioner were terminated and his criminal prosecution was done. Merely because the petitioner is now acquitted by the appellate Court, such a misconduct of the petitioner is not come to an end and as such, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated hereinabove. THEre shall be no order as to costs.