Full Judgment
Sandeep versus State of M.P.& Anr.Writ Petition No.8679 / 2008 28.1.2014 Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, leanred Dy.
Advocate General for respondent No.1.
Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 7.8.1997 terminating the service of petitioner due to his absence from duty, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner was working in the Nagar Palika Parishad Chhidwara as a sweeper.
He was arrested on 15.3.97 vide crime No.139/97 due to his involvement in criminal case for offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC.
Records indicate that he was arrested on 15.3.97 and continued to remain in police custody for a period of more than 5 months.
As he was not attending duty and continued to remain in police custody for 5 months, the municipal council took the impugned action.
However, petitioner was released on bail some time in the end of August, 1997 and when he reported to join duties, because of his unauthorized absence from service due to his involvement in criminal case his services were terminated.
Even though order was passed on 7.8.97, petitioner did not challenge the order and remained quite.
However, the criminal case went on and on 26.10.2005 the trial was concluded, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges and after his acquittal in the criminal case petitioner Sandeep versus State of M.P.& Anr.represented to the department from 2005 upto 2007 and when nothing was done this writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a two fold submissions, his fiRs.submission was that the termination on 7.8.1997 without hearing him and without granting him any opportunity is in violation to the principles of natural justice is unsustainable.
Accordingly, he submits that the termination is not valid.
His second contention is that he terminated from service because of his involvement in criminal case and now after his acquittal from criminal case, the matter should be reconsidered.
Shri Rahul Jain and Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for respondents point out that petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide order Annexure P-2 on 15.3.96, he joined duties on 19.3.96 vide Annexure P-3 and by inviting my attention to the order of joining Annexure P-2 Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel points out that the appointment was on probation for a period of 2 years and as a probationer petitioner was unauthorizedly absence due to arrest from 15.3.97 for a period of more than 5 months his services were terminated.
It is stated by Shri Paliwal, that termination of service of probationer on aforesaid ground cannot be said to be illegal, merely because the municipal counsel did not conduct any enquiry or issue show-cause notice, it does not cause prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, on this ground interference is not called for.
As far as, interference on fiRs.count is concerned Shri Sandeep versus State of M.P.& Anr.Paliwal, learned counsel submits that petitioner himself is responsible for criminal case and as he approached this court after a long period of time i.e.after 10 years of his acquittal, no indulgence into the matter is required.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that as far as terminating service vide order Annexure P-1 dated 7.8.97 is concerned no interference on this counts is called for, as the order is challenged by the petitioner after more than 10 years and, therefore, on this count alone the prayer for quashing order Annexure P-1 required to be rejected.
That apart, petitioner's appointment was on probation, admittedly he was arrested and was in custody for more than 5 months and, therefore, on such consideration due to his long absence from service municipal council has terminated his probation.
Accordingly, in terminating service vide Annexure P-1 as probationer, I am of the considered view that no error is committed by the municipal council warranting interference.
As petitioner's termination was result of involvement in criminal case and as now he is acquitted in criminal case the municipal council should re- consider the matter and if found feasible may take steps afresh for granting reappointment to the petitioner.
This aspect of the matter and the representations submitted by the petitioner after his acquittal having not been considered, the matter requires to remand back to the Sandeep versus State of M.P.& Anr.municipal council Chhindwara for reconsideration., accordingly, the following directions were issued : On petitioner's filing a certified copy along with relevant documents the Nagar Palika Parishad Chhindwara shall reexamine the case of petitioner after taking note of his acquittal in criminal case and shall consider the question of his re-appointment in accordance to law.
The municipal council shall consider the reasons for his termination and subsequent acquittal in criminal case and shall take fresh decision with regard to re-engagement granted in accordance to rules and regulations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss