CHAIRMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SUDARSAN DAS
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 25,2006

Chairman, Food Corporation Of India Appellant
VERSUS
SUDARSAN DAS Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

S KARUPPUCHAMY VS. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-389] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AUTAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-393] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN TYAGI VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-286] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2023-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
AVIJIT ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2011-11-144] [REFERRED]
PRAKASH SHESHMALJI JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-919] [REFERRED TO]
SIYAMANI DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
K.V.RAMAMOORTHY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINBHAI NATHALAL JOSHI VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-70] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The respondent herein was dismissed from service by order dated 27-8-1986 on the ground of having been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 323 IPC. It is not in dispute that the High Court of Orissa by a judgment and order dated 24-11-1986 allowed the criminal revision preferred by the respondent herein from the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-12-1982 passed by the Sessions Judge in ST Case No. 16 of 1982, inter alia, holding that "no evidence had been led by the prosecution to show as to who were the people who received injury on ground of assaults by any of the accused". It was opined:
"That evidence being lacking, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in that view of the matter, I would set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323, Penal Code, 1860 and acquit him of the charges levelled against him."

(2.)The respondent filed representations before the appointing authority for his reinstatement, but the same did not receive favourable response. In the meanwhile, it appears, he had been convicted in another case viz. GR Case No. 677 of 1980. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa after a period of 13 years, that is, in 1999. By reason of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the respondent had been directed to be reinstated with full back wages.
(3.)Before the High Court as well as before us a contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was not entitled to be reinstated in service having regard to the fact that he had also been convicted in another case.


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