SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Heera Lal Sharma on 7 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 513 / 2018

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Bhilwara.

4. The Principle, Government Senior Secondary School, Dhosar,
Bhilwara.

—-Appellants
Versus
Heera Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Babu Ram Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, Resident of Dhosar, District Bhilwara.

—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Joshi on behalf of
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
__
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/03/2018

Civil Misc. Application No.288/2018:

1. For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the

appeal is condoned.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.513/2018:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. Case pleaded before the learned Single Judge by the

respondent was that on compassionate grounds he was appointed

as a Class-IV employee vide order dated 04.08.2016 and pursuant

thereto he joined duties on 19.08.2016. That at the time of

granting appointment no information regarding involvement in a
(2 of 3)
[SAW-513/2018]

criminal case was sought. Pleading further that after he was

appointed, based on a police verification report dated 23.08.2016

as per which on a complaint lodged by his wife FIR for offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 323 IPC was registered

against him, his services were terminated on 14.10.2016. The

respondent pleaded lack of opportunity of hearing granted to him

before passing the order of termination. He also relied upon a

decision of the Supreme Court pronounced on 21.07.2016 in

Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011, Avtar Singh vs. Union

of India Ors.

3. In the reply to the writ petition the appellants did not plead

any concealment by the writ petitioner. It was not pleaded that

before issuing the appointment order the writ petitioner was called

upon to fill up any form in which information regarding

involvement in a criminal case was sought for and while fill up the

form the respondent hid said fact of he being an accused in the

FIR lodged by his wife.

4. Allowing the writ petition, vide impugned order dated

25.03.2017 the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that

decisions concerning utmost rectitude and impeccable character

and integrity concerning police service would not strictly apply

where appointment is to a Class-IV post. The learned Single

Judge has also rightly highlighted that brush with criminal law

where the offence allegedly committed does not involve an issue

of moral turpitude is relevant. In the instant case the complaint

lodged by the wife pertains to offences punishable under Sections

498A and 323 IPC. It is not the case of the appellant that the
(3 of 3)
[SAW-513/2018]

respondent has been convicted in said FIR.

5. In Avtar Singh’s case (supra) the Supreme Court itself

observed that cases of trivial nature have to be ignored. The

discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge is therefore

premised on sound legal principles.

6. The writ appeal is dismissed in limine.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J.

Mohit Tak

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh