1 S.B.C.W. NO. 1968/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1968/09 Anil Kumar Vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Date of Order : : 18.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Kailash Khatri for the petitioner. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annex.4 dated 02.3.2009 passed by respondent Superintending Engineer (O&M) has been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was charged with offence under Section 379 IPC i.e. the offence of committing theft on a 2 S.B.C.W. NO. 1968/2009 report lodged by Dy.Engineer, Irrigation Department, Padampur on 14.8.2000 with the Police Station, Padampur, the matter came to be investigated by the police and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner in a competent Court arising out of FIR No. 157/2000 and the trial proceeded and by judgment and order dated 19.9.2000, in Criminal Case No. 481/2000 the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur found that the charge of theft against the present petitioner has been proved and convicted him for the said offence, however, on the point of quantum of sentence instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to imprisonment, the said Court released the petitioner on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as also awarded compensation against him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since the petitioner has not been sent to imprisonment and therefore, the order of Judicial Magistrate, Padampur convicting the petitioner dated 19.9.2000 cannot be a ground for terminating the services of the petitioner by the order impugned Annex.4 dated 02.03.2009. From the perusal of the order impugned Annex.4, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a technical 3 S.B.C.W. NO. 1968/2009 Helper Probationer Trainee by order dated 5.9.2008 subject to the condition of police verification report. As per the Condition No.17 of the appointment order dated 5.9.2008, the police verification was asked from the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar who has forwarded report vide his letter dated 19.2.2009 whereby it has been informed that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case No. 157/2000 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and therefore, as per conditions of appointment order the services of the petitioner were no more required. Since the petitioner was a probationer trainee and it revealed that the petitioner has been previously convicted for the offence of theft, his services came to be terminated. The services of the employees who have been engaged by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited were earlier governed by the provisions of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975. However, on creation of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and other Companies in the State, the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited has framed service conditions of its employees and the regulations providing therein that if a person is convicted on criminal charge involving moral turpitude his services are liable to be terminated. In the instant case, since 4 S.B.C.W. NO. 1968/2009 indisputably the petitioner stood convicted for the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC which involves the moral turpitude and therefore, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner by the order impugned. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed summarily. (H.R. PANWAR), J. Rp 5 S.B.C.W. NO. 1968/2009 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.3465/09 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1968/2009 Date of Order : 18.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Kailash Khatri for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. Rp