- (1.) INSTANT intra court appeal has been filed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt.3.12.2003 upholding action of the respondent in terminating services of the appellant vide order dt.24.9.1996 who was appointed as Sub -Station Supervisor Gr.II on probation for two years on the premise that adverse remark was recorded in the police antecedent report dt.8.8.1996 indicating that a criminal case was registered and pending against him for the offence u/S.447 & 379 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant after going through the process of selection as contemplated under the Scheme of Rules came to be appointed on the post of Sub -Station Supervisor Gr. II in the pay scale of 1200 -2050 on probation for a period of two years vide order dt.17.5.1996. While he was performing his duties, on police verification, antecedent report from the office of Superintendent of Police of the District dt.8.8.1996 was received and while certifying his character to be satisfactory and fit for employment in the state govt. made further indication of a criminal case -126/95 was registered against the appellant u/S.447, 379 IPC. Based on the police antecedent report dt.8.8.1996 and taking note of Clause -6 of terms and conditions of appointment dt.17.5.1996, the services of the appellant came to be terminated vide order dt.24.9.1996.
(2.) IT may be relevant to note that it was not a case where there was any concealment or misrepresentation made by the appellant or suppressing material information asked for by the employer respondent at the time when he filled the form or while the appellant was on probation on the post of Sub -Station Supervisor Gr. II dt.17.5.1996. After notices of the petition came to be served, the respondent tried to justify their action that in view of condition no.6 of the order of appointment, if there was any adverse remark recorded in relation to antecedents of the appointee, his services can be terminated without any notice or any payment in lieu thereof and the police antecedent report received from the SP Jhalawar dt.8.8.1996 clearly indicating that a criminal case -126/95 was registered u/S.447 and 379 IPC and that found him to be unfit to continue in service and accordingly his services have been terminated because of involvement in criminal activities invoking Clause -6 of the terms and conditions of appointment vide order dt.24.9.1996.
(3.) THE ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dt.3.12.2003 taking note of criminal case registered against him and held that termination is in terms of clause -6 of the letter of appointment and declined to interfere which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal. Counsel for appellant submits that mere pendency of criminal case of trivial nature which is not even remotely reflects the character of an incumbent and mere institution of criminal case itself may not consider of a nature of involvement of any kind of moral turpitude and to make a basis for termination of service and further submits that condition no.6 of the terms and conditions of order of appointment dt.17.5.1996 also does not indicate that mere pendency of criminal case in itself may consider to be an adverse remark which can entail termination of service without taking note of nature of allegation leveled and effect of pendency of criminal case in discharge of duties while in service and if it is considered that mere registration of criminal case in itself is sufficient to consider it as an adverse remark and passing order of termination as a consequence thereof may certainly be in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and under the Scheme of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 which was prevalent at the relevant time or the Scheme which has now been introduced namely RVPN Ministerial Staff Regulations, 2006 has neither been considered by the respondent nor by the ld. Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition and that requires interference of this Court. Counsel for appellant further submits that it was not the case of the respondent that he has concealed material information or misrepresented while disclosing the information desired by the employer at the time when application form was filled or at any later point of time while he was selected and given appointment on probation for a period of two years vide order dt.17.5.1996 and even as per Reg 12 of the Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962 mere conviction by court of law need not in itself deprives the appointee to continue in service and the respondent employer is under obligation to examine the circumstances of the conviction, if any. In the instant case, the complainant party is closely related to the appellant's family and dispute was in respect of possession of land and revenue dispute between the parties was pending in which he was acquitted after regular trial by the Ld. trial judge vide order dt.26.4.2001 and which is not even remotely related in any manner reflecting moral character of the appellant. Per contra, counsel for respondents has supported the order of ld. Single Judge and submits that in the letter of appointment dt.17.5.1996 under Clause -6 if there would be any adverse police antecedent report, the employer reserve right to terminate services of such person and as the police antecedent report indicates pendency of criminal case against him, taking that to be an adverse remark, the services have rightly been terminated vide order dt.24.9.1996 and the ld. Single Judge taking note of terms and conditions of order of appointment dt.17.5.1996 and pendency of criminal case against him as an adverse remark, rightly not interfered and upheld the action of the respondents in terminating service of the appellant which does not call for any interference.;