VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 1. 11. 2000 (Annex.-1) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner may be ordered to be reinstated.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Beldar in PHED, Salumber since 6. 3. 1991 and from 28. 6. 1997 he was declared Semi-Permanent in pay-scale of Rs. 800-1250/ -. It has also been averred in the writ petition that a criminal case was lodged on 13. 5. 1983 against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Sections 323 and 333 IPC, in which after trial petitioner alongwith co-accused was convicted by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur vide judgment dated 21. 1. 1984. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 2. 3. 2000 and on dismissal of appeal the petitioner was sent to jail for serving out the sentence. On his conviction the service of the petitioner were terminated vide-order dated 1. 11. 2000. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident for which the petitioner has been convicted relates to the year 1987 i. e. , much prior to joining the service by the petitioner and during his service period the petitioner did not commit any offence. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the offence alleged against the petitioner did not involve moral turpitude, hence, termination of the service of the petitioner is illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage.
(3.) THE services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of his conviction in the criminal case while resorting to the provisions of the Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1958' ). Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18, the services of a Government employee shall be terminated on his conviction by the competent criminal court. While resorting to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 the procedure as laid down under Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958 is not required to be followed. Even in the cases where the services are terminated on account of conviction by the competent criminal court the provisions of Article 311 (2) shall not apply. That apart the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches, in as much as, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 1. 10. 2000 and the petitioner has challenged the said order in the year 2005, for which there is no explanation in the entire writ petition what to say of satisfactory explanation. In the present case, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of his conviction in conformity with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. ;