Dr. Sumeet Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Surya Kant, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant''s writ petition in limine wherein he laid challenge to the order dated 3/12.12.2013 (Annexure P9) terminating his services on the post of Medical Officer during the period of probation.

The appellant, who holds an MBBS degree, was appointed as a Medical Officer on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Before his selection, he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307/148/506/149 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for four years along with a fine amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant is stated to have disclosed the above-stated fact in the application form submitted to the Commission. He was, however, selected and given appointment by the State Government vide appointment letter dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure P4). The appellant''s services were terminated vide order dated 3/12.12.2013 (Annexure P9) in terms of condition No. 4 of the appointment letter which, inter-alia, provides that till the time the job is temporary, there shall be no presumption of his permanency.

The termination order unveils that the appellant''s services have been terminated on the ground of his conviction and consequential sentence in the above-stated criminal case.

The aggrieved appellant approached this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition by way of a self-speaking order dated 13.01.2014 which is under challenge in this appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears to us that the appellant, having disclosed that he had been convicted for a criminal offence and that the sentence imposed upon him had been suspended by this Court, in the appeal filed by him against his conviction, he was still recruited and even offered appointment also. Furthermore, the role of the appellant in the fight that took place, leading to his conviction as a co-accused, is something that may need to be looked into as it is contended by his learned counsel that only a "Lalkara" was attributed to him. There are some pure questions of law also raised on behalf of the appellant, which would require determination on hearing both the parties.

Hence, without commenting upon the merits of any of the contentions, we, set-aside the order under appeal and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision after considering the above and other questions including as to whether the role of the appellant, as contended before us, would amount to moral turpitude and, as such, justifies his termination even though the conviction was prior to his appointment.

Obviously, in this regard the reply of the respondents would be necessary and, as such, we direct that the matter be put up before the learned Single Judge on 30.04.2014, by which time the State of Punjab is directed to file its reply to the writ petition, so as to enable the learned Single Judge to take a fresh decision in the matter.

Ordered accordingly.