1 SAW No.634/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.634 of 2010. IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4877 of 2010. Gopiram son of Shri Lakharam VERSUS The Food Corporation of India and Another Date of Order :::: 23.11.2010 Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Mr. Arun Mishra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, Counsel for the appellant **** Per : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9th April, 2010 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing of the order of the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jaipur dated 5th March, 2010 was dismissed. By the order dated 05.03.2010 the petitioner was dismissed from the service by the respondent-F.C.I. The brief facts relevant for consideration are that the petitioner-appellant was convicted for commission of the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and was sentenced to six-years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- by the competent Court. Taking note of the aforesaid, the petitioner was removed from service vide order Annexure-4 dated 5th March, 2 SAW No.634/2010 2010 by the Assistant Manager (IRL) Food Corporation of India, Jaipur. Prior to passing of the order dated 5th March, 2010 the petitioner was given a notice Annexure-2 dated 01.02.2010 to explain why in view of the judgment of the High Court dated 11.10.2009 upholding the conviction, though altering the sentence to the one already undergone. The petitioner should not be dismissed from service. Fifteen-days time was allowed to the petitioner to file the reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, Annexure-2 dated 01.02.2010. Petitioner submitted his reply, Annexure-3 to the notice Annexure-2 dated 01.02.2010 on 10.02.2010. So far as the fact of conviction on the criminal charge is concerned, the same was not disputed by the petitioner. All that was submitted by the learned counsel was that the matter may be dealt with leniently looking to the fact that the petitioner was a poor man and has suffered on account of having been placed under suspension by the authority concerned, after he was detained in judicial custody for more than 48-hours and later removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been convicted not under Section 302 I.P.C. as originally charged, but under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and his 3 SAW No.634/2010 sentence had also been reduced to the one already undergone of about four-years and as the learned Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not intend to commit the murder. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner is concerned based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (1996) 4 S.C.C. 17 the same relates to a civil servant and the question involved was whether or not the offene under Section 294 I.P.C. for which the petitioner was convicted was on account of the petitioner having entered upon a plea of guilty with a punishment of fine of Rs.20/- was one involving moral turpitude. The conviction was considered as sufficient by the respondents to debar the petitioner from being considered for regular appointment on a Class-IV post as a field worker, since he was continuing on an ad- hoc basis since 19th April, 1978. In Para 13 of the aforesaid report their Lordships of the Apex Court have recorded that the respondents in that case were directed to produce the copy of the judgment of conviction before the Court by which the appellant was convicted for the offence so that the allegation in the F.I.R. etc., could be examined. As was expected only a copy of the institution/summary register, along with 4 SAW No.634/2010 the copy of the treasury challan for depositing the fine alone could be produced. In these circumstances, their Lordships held that from the material placed, it was difficult to judge as to whether or not the delinquent had pleaded guilty to the office under Section 294 I.P.C. or even whether the allegations in the F.I.R. made out an offence under Section 294 I.P.C. Their Lordships, therefore, held that “mere payment of fine of Rs.20/- does not go to show that the conviction was validly and legally recorded.” Pawan Kumar's case (supra), therefore, deals with its own peculiar facts and circumstances and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner is not even a civil servant entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as he is merely an employee of the Food Corporation of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant failed to produce before us any set of rules governing the procedure with regard to departmental inquiry framed by the Food Corporation of India and whether there was any violation of procedure etc., based upon the same. Nor was it submitted that there had been any violation of the service rules in this behalf. In the instant case, the petitioner was convicted by the 5 SAW No.634/2010 learned trial Court- Additional District Judge (Fast Track) and the conviction on appreciation of evidence was upheld by this Court while deciding the appeal on the criminal charges. In the facts and circumstances considering the law laid down the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of M.P. and Another, reported in 2004 (4) M.P.L.J. Page 555 wherein it has been held in Paras 10 to 12 of the report that while dealing with a case whether or not the delinquent having been convicted for commission of a criminal offence and sentenced by the Court and on coming to know that the Government servant had been convicted on a criminal charge even no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the delinquent before imposing the penalty. The aforesaid decision was given based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1416 and other decisions referred to therein. Thus, the law on the point is quite settled. In the instant case the petitioner after his conviction has been given a show cause notice Annexure-2, to which a reply, Annexure-3 was submitted and on consideration of the same the order Annexure-4 has been passed. Thus, we find no merit in this special appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. 6 SAW No.634/2010 The stay application also stands dismissed. (Dalip Singh) J. (Arun Mishra) Actg. C.J. Ashok/