IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16875 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.GANGADHARAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, KASARAGOD, (UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL), RESIDING AT CHANDROTH HOUSE, KOTTOOR, KADACHIRA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 16875 of 2009 D =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner who was working as Head Accountant in the Government College, Kasaragod was removed from service by Ext.P1 order dated 6-8-2005 following the judgment of conviction and sentence delivered by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery on 25-6-2005 in S.T.C. Nos.1999 and 2075 of 2004. By the said judgments, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation to the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in Crl.A.No.468 of 2005 and 470 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. Crl.A.No.468 of 2005 filed from S.T.Case No.1999 of 2004 was allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted under section 320(8) Cr.P.C.. Crl.A.No.470 of 2005 filed by the petitioner from S.T.Case No. 2075 of 2004 was W.P.(C) No. 16875/09 2 dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The petitioner thereupon filed Crl.R.P. No. 2757 of 2007 in this Court. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 3- 9-2008 compounding the offence. It was held that it will have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner within the meaning of section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s grievance is that though he has been acquitted of the criminal charges, till date he has not been reinstated in service notwithstanding Ext.P5 representation submitted to the Director of Collegiate Education. 3. The petitioner contends that as he was dismissed from service applying Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, as the judgments of conviction and sentence have been set aside and he has been acquitted of the charges, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all attendant benefits. He also relies on a decision of this Court in Jain Babu V. Joseph (2008(4) KLT 16) in support of the said contention. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that order terminating the petitioner was passed at a time when the judgment of conviction was in force and that as the judgment has been set aside, the Director of Collegiate Education will necessarily have to issue orders reinstating the petitioner in service. On the terms of Rule W.P.(C) No. 16875/09 3 18(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 when the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside, the Government servant is entitled to be reinstated in service with all attendant benefits. 5. The pleadings disclose that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate in two criminal cases has been set aside and the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges. Further the conviction of the petitioner was under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Jain Babu V. Joseph (Supra) held that conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve moral turpitude. A similar view has been taken by Division Benches of this Court in Saseendran Nair V. General Manager (1996(2) KLT 482) and K.S.R.T.C. V. Abdul Latheef (2005(3)KLT 955). In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service applying Rule 18(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to pass orders in that regard within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment. The Director of Collegiate Education shall, while passing orders as directed above, have due regard to the decision of this Court in Mohandas V. State of W.P.(C) No. 16875/09 4 Kerala (2008(3) KLT 62). The petitioner shall in order to enable him to act as directed above, produce before him a photocopy of the decision of this Court in Mohandas V. State of Kerala (Supra) along with a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.