BALESWAR SINGH Vs. COMMINISIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-53
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 09,1996

BALESWAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Comminisioners For The Port Of Calcutta And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOVERNED BY STATUTE -COULD V/S. STUART [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL SUPPLY V/S. ANGEHORN [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL V/S. SPACKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS V/S. SARATHY [REFERRED TO]
NAKKUDA ALI V/S. JAYRAIME [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D. Basu, J. - (1.)Though the facts is this case under Article 226 if the Constitution are short, serious questions of few have been raised.
(2.)The petitioner, a sub -gunner under the employ of respondent 1, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, was on 5 January 1961, convicted of an offence under Ss. 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, instituted on private complaint and sentenced to a fine and, in default, to imprisonment. Two years later, on 28 March 1963. he was suspended and on 4 April 1963, he was served with the order of respondent 2, the Traffic Manager of the Commissioners, removing the petitioner from service. It would be useful to reproduce that order (annexure A to the petition) at once:
Whereas Baleswar Singh, sub -gunner, was convicted on a criminal charge under Ss. 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment on 6 January 1961 which was confirmed by the appellate Court;

And whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Baleswar Singh which led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in service undesirable;

Now, therefore, the Deputy Chairman directs that the said Baleswar Singh, sub -gunner, should be removed from service.

(3.)The petitioner states that two other employees who were convicted in the same case along with the petitioner have not; been removed by the respondents. On 30 April 1963, the union to which the petitioner belongs wrote the letter at annexure B to the Deputy Chairman of the Commissioners, requesting that the impugned order be reconsidered on the ground that the offence of which the petitioner had been convicted did not involve moral turpitude, nor did it relate to his work or working place and that, accordingly. he should not be removed on the ground of such conviction in view of the "prevailing practice " in the Commissioners' service, that only conviction on charges involving moral turpitude caused removal of their employees from service.
;


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