H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.09.2006 and consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Gr.III by the respondent. The petitioner and other persons while in Govt, service, alleged to have involved in commission of crime punishable under various sections of IPC causing murder of one Madanlal. A crime report came to be lodged against the petitioner and others on 31.3.1973. He was put to trial for the offences under Sections 147,302/149,307/149,323/149, 324/149,153 -A/149 and 148 IPC along with other co -accused in Sessions Case No. 25/74. The petitioner was arrested by the police and therefore, the respondent employer placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 12.09.1973. After holding the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur by its judgment and order dated 22.2.1978 convicted the petitioner and other co -accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and for the offences under Sections 323/149 and 148 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ - each on each count and for offence under Section 324/149 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - each. The co -accused Sher Mohammed and others including the petitioner filed appeal before Division Bench of this Court being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 104/78 which came to be decided by judgment dated 06.04.1998 setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 302/149, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner and other co -accused for the offence under Section 148 IPC was maintained. The sentence for the offence under Section 148 IPC was for three months rigorous imprisonment, which the petitioner has already undergone by remaining in custody for more than the period for which the sentence has been awarded. The petitioner moved for revocation of his suspension order, however, he failed to succeed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being SBCW No. 3396/03, though in the instant writ petition, in para 12 of the writ petition at internal page 8, the petitioner and his counsel stated that no such writ petition has previously been filed in this matter either before Hon'ble Supreme Court or before this Court by the petitioner. Be that as it may, such averment in para 12 of the writ petition runs contrary to the record as the petitioner himself annexed an order of this Court passed In SBCW No. 3396/03 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh by order dated 01.12.2006. The petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 13.09.2006 exercising Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter). Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was arrested on a crime report lodged against him for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and other offences including offence under Section 148 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The petitioner came to be suspended by order dated 12.09.1973 on the ground that he was arrested in a crime report for causing murder and remained in jail for a long period and thereafter in the year 1998 almost after about expiry of 25 years, he filed application Annex.2 challenging the suspension which according to the respondents suffers from delay and laches and the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition is distinguishable on facts as the petitioner was, initially appointed on the post of Teacher and has been working as Teacher Gr.III for few years and thereafter got himself involved in a criminal case of causing murder of a person and rioting etc. and lastly it was contended that indisputably the petitioner stood convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment and therefore, there was no necessity for providing an opportunity of hearing and conducting inquiry as contemplated under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the CCA Rules and the respondents were justified in dismissing the petitioner from service Invoking Rule 19 of the CCA Rules.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Raj Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. : 1990 (Supp) SCC 61 and a decision of this Court in Hanuman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) 369 :, RLW 1991 (1) Raj. 495.;