Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Sandhya w/o Anil Deshmukh, was an Assistant Teacher employed with Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Railway, under the Zilla Parishad, Amravati. Her sister-in-law committed suicide, and the brother of the deceased alleged that the petitioner had caused the suicide. A complaint was lodged, and Crime No. 139/1999 was registered against the petitioner and two others under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 18.09.1999 and remained in custody until 24.09.1999. Consequently, she was placed under suspension by order dated 14.10.1999. In the criminal trial, the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 30.11.2004 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner appealed against the conviction in Criminal Appeal No.764/2004. Meanwhile, based on the conviction, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.04.2005. In the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was held guilty, and on 10.05.2005, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order under Rule 9(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, dismissing the petitioner from service and treating the period of suspension as period of punishment. The petitioner appealed under Rule 14 of the said Rules, but the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.03.2006. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the dismissal order. The main legal issue was whether the dismissal order based on conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude was sustainable when the conviction was under appeal and the petitioner had been released on bail. The petitioner argued that since the conviction was under appeal, the dismissal was premature. The respondents contended that the conviction itself justified dismissal under Rule 9(1) and the appeal did not stay the conviction. The court analyzed Rule 9(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, which permits dismissal on the ground of conduct leading to conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The court held that the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) involves moral turpitude, and the pendency of an appeal against conviction does not automatically stay the conviction or the consequential dismissal order. The court found no infirmity in the dismissal order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal from service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal on Conviction - Rule 9(1) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Conviction for offence involving moral turpitude - Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was convicted under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC for abetment of suicide of her sister-in-law and sentenced to two years imprisonment - Based on the conviction, the Chief Executive Officer dismissed the petitioner from service under Rule 9(1) without holding a separate disciplinary enquiry - The appellate authority dismissed the appeal - Held that the conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude justified the dismissal and the pendency of an appeal against conviction does not automatically stay the conviction or the consequential dismissal order (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Law - Offence Involving Moral Turpitude - Sections 306, 498-A IPC - Abetment of suicide and cruelty by husband or relative - The petitioner was convicted for abetment of suicide of her sister-in-law - The court noted that the offence under Section 306 IPC involves moral turpitude as it involves intentional aiding or instigating a person to commit suicide - Such conviction is sufficient to invoke Rule 9(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for dismissal without a full-fledged departmental enquiry (Paras 2-5). C) Service Law - Suspension Period - Treatment as Punishment - The order of dismissal also treated the period of suspension as period of punishment - The petitioner challenged this but the court did not specifically address this aspect as the main challenge to dismissal failed - However, the court upheld the dismissal order in its entirety (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of dismissal from service passed on the basis of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude is sustainable when the conviction is under appeal and the employee has been released on bail.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal from service dated 10.05.2005 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, and the appellate order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner are upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude justifies dismissal from service
- Dismissal order based on conviction does not require separate disciplinary enquiry
- Appeal against conviction does not stay the conviction unless specifically ordered by appellate court
- Rule 9(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules permits dismissal on ground of conduct leading to conviction
