MOHD TAHIR S/O MOHD ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
MOHD. TAHIR S/O MOHD. ALI
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner was employed in a permanent capacity as a Labourer in the respondent organization. It transpires that the petitioner was taken in police custody on 29.11.2001 and remained in jail till 10th January, 2002 in connection with some criminal case. When the respondents came to know about his detention, an order dated 16th April, 2002 was passed suspending the petitioner w.e.f. 29th November, 2001. It further transpires that chargesheet u/S 302 and 307 I.P.C. was filed against the petitioner. The trial court convicted the petitioner giving him life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- by an order dated 5th October, 2007. The respondent issued an order dated 15th December, 2007 dismissing the petitioner from the services exercising the powers under Rule 14 and Rule 11 of the CCS. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 for violation of Rule (1)(i) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was dismissed from the services from the date of issuance of the judgment by the trial court, i.e. 5th October, 2007. The order of dismissal is quoted in extenso:-
1. WHEREAS, Mohd. Tahir, Civ/Labourer of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee is suspended w.e.f. 29 Nov 2001, in terms of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of CCS (CC & A) Rule 1965 due to his involvement in serious criminal case under Sec 302 and 307 of IPC and was in detention in police custody w.e.f. 29 Nov 2001 to 10 Jan 2002. The individual was suspended w.e.f. 29 Nov 2001 vide 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee Suspension Order No. 122/DISC/Civ/ST-12 dated 16 Apr 2002.
2. WHEREAS, all criminal charges under Sec. 302 and 307 of IPC framed against Mohd Tahir, Civ/Labourer of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee was proved in 1st Fast Track Court/Addition Sessions Judge, Haridwar (Uttarakhand). The copy of the judgment received from 1st Fast Track Court/Addition Sessions Judge, Haridwar (Uttarakhand) No nil dt. 05 Oct 2007 vide which life imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- financial punishment awarded to Mohd. Tahir, Civ/Labourer of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee to his conviction on a criminal charge under Sec. 302 and 207 of IPC and the same was published in Daily News Paper "Amar Ujala" dt. 06 Oct 2007 and Special Review Committee of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee also recommends that Mohd Tahir, Civ/Labourer of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee to be dismissed from Govt. service w.e.f. 05 Oct 2007 under Rule 14 and Rule 11 of (ix) of CCS (CC & A) Rule 1965 for violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) and Govt. of India decision No. 23(9) of Rule 3-C, CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.
3. WHEREAS, the undersigned has carefully considered the Special Review Committee Report and agrees with the recommendations of Special Review Committee Report.
4. NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 14 and Rule 11 of (ix) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 for violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) and Govt. of India decision No. 23(9) of Rule 3-C, CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 hereby imposes the following penalties on the said Mohd Tahir, Civ/Labourer of 297 Coy ASC (Sup) Type 'C' Roorkee:-
(a) Suspension period not to be extended w.e.f. 05 Oct 2007.
(b) To be dismissed from service from the date of issue of judgment by 1st Fast Track Court/Addition Sessions Judge, Haridwar (Uttarakhand) i.e. 05 Oct 2007 which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Govt.
Case No. 122/PC/Civ/St-12
Dated: 15 Dec 2007
From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the respondent-organisation was based on the conviction by the trial court and, that the dismissal was not based on any domestic inquiry as a result of the chargesheet issued by the respondent. Even though, the impugned order states that the dismissal order has been passed under Rule 14 read with Rule 11 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1995 which, apparently on the face of it, is incorrect.
(2.) As stated earlier, the petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction before the High Court of Uttarakhand which was allowed by a judgment dated 8th October, 2009 and the conviction of the petitioner alongwith others was set aside. The Court held that the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The operative portion of the order of the High Court setting aside the conviction is quoted hereunder:-
For the reasons stated above, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants is not liable to be sustained in the eye of law. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals are liable to be allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
(3.) It has come on record that against the order of the High Court, the complainant has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India which has been admitted but the judgment of the High Court has not been stayed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.