d^2l INTHEHIGHGOURTOFfSHH^mSGARHAT BILASPUR WMTPETITIONfstN0.^^^/201 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Swayainber yKa, S/o.Shri Uruesh JUa, Aged abouf 40 year, R/6. Ghuddera, S.E.C.L. Colony, Kusmurida Area, Distriet Korba :-(C.G.I: ,.::,•.... ,.,:.:,.^. VERSUS, •1 •- , : ,:: , . 1- South Eastem Goallields Limited, Through: Ghairman-cUm-Maiiagmg Dii-ector, Basanf %Maf, SGepat Road; Bilaspur ^G.G.). ^ The(31-tiefGeneralManager, S.E.C.L., Kusrm..uidaArea, BistrictKorba (C.G.) The Deputy Ctiief Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. KusinundaArea, District Korba (C.G.) Ths' .G^er^ Manager^'^pe^ Adiniiiistration) (G^G.)-, WRIT:.CTHa^©liIW81®iB&RgM!@I^I:^26!:OFKT'HE CiONS'i'ifli®IiWH@ffilBNEff^ S.E.G.L. .Bilaspur l!t! HIGHCOUR^ORCHHATTISGARHATBII.ASPUR SingIeBench: Hon'bIeWlr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Writ Petition fS3 No. 70SS of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Svi/ayamberJha Versus SoutM Eastern Coal Fields Ud. and others. w ^•^"•: PostfcrpronouncententoftheoKJeron^j.12.2010 w Sd/- „ Pritinker Diwakar Judge w t<KW: ;tl^^^^'-:i'l/^: ^M aiasi; HllSl M8T^F(3HHji®l®G^li-ll«'lgBni (HO IMKUU6ticePritirik^r@iwal(igr); y Writ^^^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS SwayamberJtta South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd and ofhers Shri Ashok Shukla counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajeet Singh under the authority of Shri Pravin Das counsel for the respondents. O R D E R (9^12.2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the SECL rejecting the appeal/representation of the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner who was an employee of SECL was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2001 (Annexure P-1) under section 307 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (5) and 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Against his conviction the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in which on 17.4.2002 he has been granted bail. Petitioner's case is that after being released on bail by this Court when he went to give joining, the SECL did not accept the same and on the contrary his services were terminated vide order dated 1.11.2002 (Annexure P-9). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case ofone similarly situated person namely Dev Narayan Tiwari who was also convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was granted bail by this Court, the department has permitted him to join his duties whereas in the case of the petitioner his services have been terminated in an illegal manner. He submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 8.1.2010 granting liberty to the petitioner to fileappeal in the lllifc.- ^S^'^tiifi;.^^^'. ^SsSSv:^ '•'J^sK.^^^i^.SS^^^^isSS^^^ ^d|Rigr1^nBsG)nl||n!i;^pF^|s3 j!F)rg^r^ ^ffipugn^,aisinTii^rig|1hiessgmie^rri^ :4...^:'1t;hasl::beeni^pointgd':f6utl:.:Byythie?counsel?fdK:th^ services of the petitioner have rigntly been terminated^^^^ standing order of the department in particular clause 26.8 of the i^nig ^s^ which permits the department t6 terminate ttie services o^^ employees ifconvicted byahyCourtttflawinvolvinganoftence6fmoral^;g turpitude. . . ! ; ' :."~^^^^ 5. Admittedly, services of the petitioner have been terminafed on £ account of his convictionorder dated 9.11.2001.As per clause 26.8 of the certified standing order suchconviction comes within the purview of grave misconduct. Relevant portioh ofthesaid clause readsthus: "26.8 Conviction in any Court of law for any criminal offence involving moralturpitude." ' 6. From the record it is revealed that after conviction of the petitiorier a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner and aft§r considering his reply the order impugned terminating his services has been passed. Mere fact that the petitioner has been released on bail does not entitle him for reinstatement in service unless the entire conviction is suspendedor he is ultimately acquitted by the appellate Court. Furthermore, the petitionercannotderiveariybienefitoftheprder passed in the case of Dev Narayan Tiwari because there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondents in passihg th&impugned order in thecase ofthe petitioner. More so, petitioner cannotclaim any negative parity. 7. Thus thereseemsto be no illegality in the order impugned dated 15.4.2010 rejecting the appeal/representation ofthepetitioner. Petition, therefore, does not have any merit and the same is accordinglyliable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such atthe motionstage itself._ --fr"1 .K