Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chinthanuru Sivaiah vs Southern Power Distributions Company ... on 20 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)ALD468, 2003(6)ALT846
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner has been employed as Assistant Lineman in the Southern Power Distribution Company, which is a subsidiary Organization and sister concern of Transmission Corporation of AP Limited. While the petitioner was working at Tenali, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 14-9-1999, wherein a charge was framed to the effect that he has been negligent in operating AB Switch while on duty and the same has resulted in the death of an Assistant Line- man by name Sri P. Chennakesava Reddy, He was also placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted his explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved. Taking into account the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Divisional Electrical Engineer passed orders dated 17-4-2000, dropping further proceedings and ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into duty.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tenali III Town, had initiated prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, on the allegation that his negligence in operation of the AB Switch has resulted in the death of his co-employee. The same was tried as Calendar Case No. 1747 99 on the file of the 1 Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. The trial Court, through its judgment dated 7-5-2001, held that the petitioner herein was guilty of negligence resulting in death of an employee and on conviction, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner had filed Crl.A.No. 285 of 2001 in the Court of the II Additional Judge, Guntur. The appeal is pending disposal and the judgment of the Trial Court has been suspended by the Appellate Court.
3. The 1st respondent issued Memo dated 18-3-2003 dismissing the petitioner from service. The reasons stated therein are that the petitioner has been convicted in CC.No. 174 of 1999 for offence under Section 304A IPC, the Government of A.P. had issued Orders in Memo No. dated 26-11-2001 for implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001 (5) Supreme 437) regarding actions to be taken against the employees found guilty of corruption charges and in view of the said directions contained in the Memo, the petitioner is dismissed from service, without waiting for the outcome of the Criminal Appeal. The said Memo dated 18-3-2003 is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds.
4. Smt. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner and the charge framed against him was found not proved. That being the case, the question of the petitioner being dismissed, that too, without instituting any further or fresh enquiry, does not arise. So far as the Memo dated 26-11-2001 issued by the State Government, which constituted the basis for the impugned order, is concerned, she submits that it deals with the cases where the employees are convicted on charges of corruption, and by no stretch of imagination, the charge against the petitioner in CC.No. 174/99 can be said to have fallen into that category. She has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein directions were issued as regards the action to be taken against the employees convicted on charges of corruption. On analyzing the said judgment as well as the Memo dated 26-11-2001, the learned Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall into that category at all. Another submission by the learned Counsel is that even in cases where an employee is found guilty of charges of corruption, he cannot be dismissed straightaway, unless an opportunity of being heard is accorded to such employee.
5. Sri S. Ravindernath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, submits that the impugned order is solely based on the Memo issued by the Government, which in turn is issued for implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, and no exception can be taken to the same. According to him, once a person is convicted, the question of giving him a further opportunity of being heard does not arise.
6. The only basis for dismissing the petitioner is the Memo dated 26-11-2001 issued by the Government, regarding implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. This Memo, in turn, was adopted by the respondents through orders dated 22-5-2002. The purport of these Memos as well as the order of the Supreme Court is that whenever an employee is found guilty and convicted for charges of corruption, he should be proceeded against without waiting for the outcome in the appeal. Had the petitioner been found guilty of charges of corruption and convicted therefor, the respondents would have been justified in passing the impugned order.
7. It is a different thing as to whether, it was open to the respondents to resort to such a measure even where an employee has been proceeded departmentally and found not guilty. The charge against the petitioner in CC No. 174/99 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, is that he was negligent in operating the AB Switch and the same has resulted in the death of an employee. There is not even an inkling of charge of corruption against the petitioner. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, relates to cases where the employees are convicted for charges of corruption. It does not cover the cases where the employees are convicted for offences of other categories. The relevant portion of the judgments reads as under:
"When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a Court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court. There mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again, should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings."
8. The Memos issued by the Government and the one issued by the 2nd respondent purport to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court. When the petitioner is not even accused, much less, convicted of charges of corruption, it is totally ununderstandable as to how the respondents have resorted to such a drastic step of dismissing him. If at all anything, the whole exercise discloses non-application of mind. The respondents ought to have been careful when dealing with the career and livelihood of the petitioner.
9. Even where an employee is sought to be dismissed on the basis of conviction in a criminal case, the employer is required to put the employee on notice, though not under an obligation to conduct any departmental or other enquiry in this regard. The reason is that much will depend on the purport and interpretation of the relevant Service Rules, which may provide for such consequences. Even where the Service Rules provide for dismissal on conviction by a Criminal Court, in a given case, the employee may be able to satisfy the employer that the conviction, which he has suffered in a criminal case, may not be the one contemplated under the relevant Service Rules or the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. The employer is required to undertake verification or examination at least to this limited extent.
10. Otherwise, a situation may arise where the employer may dismiss an employee straightaway without verifying as to whether the conviction, which the employee had suffered, is in any way, relatable to the relevant provisions under the Service Rules or the orders issued by the competent authority from time to time. If instances are required to demonstrate such a contingency, the present case provides for one. Had the petitioner been at least informed of the proposed action, he would have been successful in making the respondents to realize that what they were purporting to do is outside the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court nor the Memo issued for implementation of the same. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground also.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential benefits also. There shall be no order as to costs.