- (1.) Heard Sri S. M. Waseem learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. H. Farooqui for the opposite parties. The petitioner's father died in-harness on 15.6.2011 from the post of 'Gramin Dak Sevak (E.D.P.L.)'. The petitioner applied for appointment under Dying in-Harness Rules. He was found fit in every aspect and an appointment letter was issued vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Later on, before the petitioner could join it was found that a case under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner. Petitioner's appointment letter was rejected vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
(2.) Petitioner says that there was a family dispute and it was a simple altercation in which both the sides have lodged their cases. This was not a case of moral turpitude or involvement in heinous crime. These are such matters which should not be made larger than life. The petitioner has relied on a Judgment in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar., 2011 4 SCC 644, wherein their Lordships in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 have held as under: 8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter, When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives, 9. In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
(3.) Further the petitioner has also relied upon another case in K. L. Narshimha Rao v. State of A. P. and others, 2001 10 SCC 561. In this case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the incumbent can continue in service subject to the decision of the criminal cases.;