- (1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by Union of India, seeks to challenge an order dated 24.2.2003 in OA No.224/2001 passed by the Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, directing it to take a fresh decision in the matter of compassionate appointment to respondent no.1 and to pass an appropriate order treating her late husband to be in service till the date of his death in respect of his salary, gratuity, family pension and other benefits within a period of three months, in view of order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the Governor, State of Rajasthan under Article 161 of the Constitution of India granting pardon to her late husband.
(2.) The petition raises an important and a substantial question of law of far reaching consequences, particularly in service jurisprudence and in election disputes, which prescribe disqualification for holding a public post under the Union or the State and from contesting elections on the ground of previous conviction and sentence by the Courts. The question that has drawn our attention, is What is the effect of the exercise of power of pardon by the President or the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India on the conviction and sentence of a person held guilty of an offence under the Indian laws.
(3.) The facts of the case insofar as they are relevant for addressing the aforementioned questions, are capsulated hereunder :- In 1982, the late husband of respondent no.1, while posted as Custom Inspector at Jalore, was accused of committing the murder of one Abu Khan, the truck driver by firing a shot from his revolver. He was tried under Section 302 IPC and was convicted by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1983 under Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. This conviction and sentence of late husband of respondent no.1 became final upto the Apex Court as his appeal was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 29.8.1997 and the SLP also came to be dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.1998. Because of his conviction, the competent authority passed an order of his removal from service under Rule 19(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (herein-after for short referred to as 'the Rules of 1965') vide communication dated 6.10.1998. This order of removal passed by the competent authority against the late husband of respondent no.1 was not assailed by him in any proceeding before any authority. However, the late husband of respondent no.1, after his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 304 Part II had become final upto the Supreme Court, filed a mercy petition before the Governor of Rajasthan, who, in exercise of his powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and on the recommendation of the then Commissioner of Customs, allowed the mercy petition and vide communication dated 3.12.1999 informed that the late husband of respondent no.1 has been granted pardon. It may be mentioned here that the husband of respondent no.1, who was a convict and was granted pardon, had died on 3.10.1999 i.e. two months before communication of order of pardon was received by his widow. Thereafter the respondent made a representation to the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits of her husband and also to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. The said representation of respondent no.1 was rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 28.11.2000 (Annexure 3 at page 24 of writ petition). Being aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, she filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur and prayed for recall of order dated 28.11.2000 and to grant the pensionary benefits of her late husband and also for directions to the petitioners to appoint her on compassionate ground. The foundation of the application filed by respondent no.1 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, was based on her plea that after her late husband was granted pardon by the Governor of State of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the same has the effect of blotting out the consequences flowing from his conviction. The application in this regard made by respondent no.1 was opposed tooth and nail by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the pardon was granted to the late husband of respondent no.1 by the Governor under mistake of fact. It was pleaded that the husband of respondent no.1 had expired before passing of pardon order and therefore, according to the petitioner, the mercy petition pending before the Governor on the date of his death stood abated. It was stated that the fact of death of late husband of respondent no.1 was not brought to the notice of Governor at the time of passing of pardon order. It was further pleaded that the late husband of respondent no.1 had never worked under Mr. S.P. Singh, the then Commissioner, Customs, who had recommended his case to the Governor for grant of pardon and according to the petitioner, he had no occasion to write that the service record of late husband of respondent no.1 was outstanding or that he had an unblemished record. It was stated that the rating of the late husband of respondent no.1 in the ACR of the previous years was poor and that number of disciplinary inquiries were pending against him which were to be prematurely dropped in view of his conviction by the Court for offences under Section 304 Part II IPC, which was admittedly a misconduct under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1965.;