Vivek Jain, J
1. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fees within seven working days.
2. Heard on interim relief.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, being a brother-in-law (jeth), has been convicted under Section 498-A and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is argued that the offence under Section 498-A has been taken off the list of offences amounting to moral turpitude by the Circular issued by the Home Department dated 24.07.2018, though the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act remains under the list of such offences. However, once Section 498-A has been taken off, the effect of retention of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the list is debatable. It is further argued that even if the authorities were under an obligation to impose a penalty, they should have given some reasoning regarding the quantum of penalty, which has not been done in the present case, and that it is not a case of corruption or any other offence which could have justified non-supply of reasons in the impugned order of termination from service. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 (3) SCC 398, it is argued that giving such reasons in some cases may be required, and this was one of such cases.
4. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the operation and effect of the order (Annexure P-1) dated 17.12.2025 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, and the petitioner shall be allowed to perform his duties and receive his salary.
5. List after service.
