Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dnyanshwar Vithuji Ghude, was a jail sepoy (Rakshak) at Central Prison, Amravati, who joined service on 1.11.1964 and was confirmed on 1.11.1965. He had put in 26 years of service before his dismissal on 8.9.1990. On 29.4.1988, while on leave, the petitioner went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha, Yavatmal for personal work. He entered the courtroom chewing pan. The Magistrate issued a show-cause notice and convicted him under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, imposing a fine of Rs.50. The petitioner did not inform his superiors about this conviction. Subsequently, the competent authority learned of the conviction and dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 8.9.1990, stating it was not in public interest to retain him. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur, but the appeal was dismissed on 17.12.1990. He then filed Writ Petition No.2904/1990 before the Bombay High Court, which was transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) upon its constitution and registered as T.A. No.1391/1992. The MAT dismissed the transfer application on 8.10.2003, leading to the present writ petition. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of a disciplined force member and that he failed to disclose the conviction. The court considered the submissions and upheld the dismissal, finding that the conviction and non-disclosure justified the punishment in public interest. The court noted that the petitioner, as a member of a disciplined force, was expected to maintain high standards of conduct and that the non-disclosure was a serious lapse. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal - Conviction under Bombay Police Act - Non-disclosure - Petitioner, a jail sepoy, was convicted under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act for chewing pan in court and fined Rs.50. He failed to report this to superiors. The competent authority dismissed him in public interest under Rule 3(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, relying on Government Circular dated 12.6.1986. The court held that the conduct was unbecoming of a disciplined force member and the non-disclosure was a serious lapse, justifying dismissal. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of a jail sepoy from service on the ground of conviction under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act and non-disclosure thereof is justified and proportionate.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal dated 8.9.1990 and the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 8.10.2003 are upheld.
Law Points
- Dismissal under Rule 3(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- 1979
- Bombay Police Act Sections 116 and 117
- Government Circular dated 12.6.1986
- Non-disclosure of conviction by public servant
- Disciplined force conduct unbecoming
