2019 (12) TMI 1509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce punishable Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall not affect the service career of the Respondent adversely, the New India Assurance Company limited which is the employer of the Respondent, has come up with the above appeal. 3. The Respondent herein joined the services of the Appellant, way back in the year 1985. The daughter-in-law of the Respondent lodged a complaint in Criminal Complaint No. 7534 of 2008 not only against the Respondent's son but also against the other family members including the Respondent herein. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, by a judgment dated 30.01.2012 convicted the Respondent and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uct on the part of the employee, which led to his conviction by criminal court, cannot be taken away in a collateral proceeding behind the back of the employer. But the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous application by Order dated 3.02.2014 on the short ground that a review of the order passed by a coordinate Bench was not permissible and that the Appellant will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. It is against the said Order of the High Court dated 3.02.2014 that the employer has come up with the above appeal. 7. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether in a revision Under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of conviction, the High Court could have, even while affirming the convi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 362 of the Code, there was no power for the High Court to alter or review the judgment rendered earlier in the revision filed by the Respondent, except for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent placed strong reliance upon the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770. It is his contention that the High Court was right in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for recall/review of its earlier order, as the High Court did not have the power to do so. 11. But the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent is fallacious for two reasons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault." 12. The case on hand is one where the Respondent secured an order from the High Court, behind the back of his employer that his conviction will not have an impact upon the service career of the Respondent. The High Court did not have the power to pass such an order. If at all, the High Court could have invoked, after convicting the Respondent, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, so that the Respondent could take shelter, if eligible, Under Section 12 of the said Act. In this case, the High Court ventured to do something which it was not empowered to do. The....