Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was a part time tubewell operator. It appears that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC and, therefore, by the order dated 20th November, 2009, the service of the petitioner have been terminated. Against the conviction order, the petitioner filed the appeal, which has been allowed in part. The petitioner has been acquitted under Sections 325 and 504 IPC, but the conviction under Section 323 IPC has been upheld and the petitioner has been released on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of First Offender Act. After the decision in the appeal, the petitioner filed a representation before the authority concerned for recalling of the order dated 20.11.2009. When no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 14252 of 2011, which has been disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected wherein it has been held hat the petitioner has not been acquitted finally under all the Sections of the IPC and, therefore, the order of dismissal from service has been upheld.
Sri Veer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC will not come within the purview of moral turpitude and the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated. He placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Parashu Ram Semwal vs. The Registrar, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garwal University, Srinagar, Garwal and others, reported in (2001) 1 UPLBEC 93.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner was a part time tubewell operator. He was not a regular employee and, therefore, the pleas which are available to a regular employee are not available to the petitioner, who was a part time tubewell operator. In fact, when the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case, the petitioner's services have been terminated. and being a part time temporary employee, the petitioner has no legal right to be reinstated.
The petitioner has been appointed as a part time tubewell operator as per the letter dated 24.6.1991 of the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Bareilly, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per the aforesaid letter, the appointment was for the period of three years under the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Under the terms and conditions, it is provided that services are absolutely temporary and in case of non-satisfactory work, the services can be terminated even without giving any notice. He was to work for the particular time, namely, from 9-30 a.m. to 12 O' clock and for the rest of the period, it was open to him to work at any other place. It was also mentioned that the services of the petitioner are different to the regular tubewell operators.
The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a case of an employee appointed against a sanctioned post of clerk and he was a routine grade clerk and has worked in various departments.
The above view is also supported by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2) and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC-1.
The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2011 bgs/