G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, Mr. M. Mridul, counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 11 clause (g) and its proviso of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has been wrongly interpreted by the Election Tribunal.
(2.) THE petitioner filed the election petition and the principal controversy was whether the conviction of the returned candidate would be counted from the date he was convicted by the Magistrate or the period for the purposes of part 2 of the proviso to Section 11 would be counted from the date, the revision petition against the conviction was decided. The tribunal has held that the period of six years' would commence from the date of judgment of conviction of the trial court and the confirmation of that judgment by the revisional court will not result in fresh commencement of the period from that date. Clause (g) of Section 11 reads as under:- " (g) has been convicted by a competent court of an offence involving moral turpitude. " Proviso (ii- of Section 11 reads as follows:- " (ii) For the purposes of clause (c), (g ). (i) (xxxxx) and (m) any person shall become eligible after lapse of six years from the date of his dismissal or conviction, as the case may be, or earlier if he is declared eligible for election by a general or a special order of the State Government in this behalf. " Obviously, a person becomes eligible even though earlier he was disqualified on account of conviction, after lapse of six years' from the date of his conviction. The date of conviction cannot be postponed for the finality to be given by the appellate court or the revisional court. Mr. Mridul placed reliance upon the judgment of Purushottam Singh v. Union of India 1 in which earlier judgment of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan was referred. Reliance was placed on Dhawani Ram v. Union of India2 referred to in Purushottam Singh's case, wherein it was held for the purposes of Article 311 clause (2) and its proviso (a) conviction means conviction which has been ordered finally.
(3.) OBVIOUSLY, the controversy in the cases of Gopalsingh, Dhawaniram and Purushottam Singh related to the important question whether a civil servant can be dismissed on the basis of his initial conviction, even though the appeal or revision is pending and there is every chance of the conviction to be set aside by the appellate court. In Purushottam Singh's case, it precisely happended that Purushottam Singh was acquitted by the appellate court and yet because the order of dismissal was passed earlier to the final judgment, he had to suffer the penalty of dismissal, unless this Court would have interfered under Article 226. The Giriraj Khatri's case was also referred in which the same view was taken that unless the appeal is decided a civil servant should not be dismissed on account of the earlier conviction. ;