Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Manoj Kumar vs Postal on 13 December, 2025
1 OA N0. 180 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00180/2017
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHAR
JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
ESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH
Manoj Kumar, Son of Shri Budhu Saw, Resident of Village & Post
Post--
Telhara, District-
District Nalanda, Pin- 801306 (Bihar)
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :-
: Shri Om Prakash Singh
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary
Secretary-cum-Director
Director
General, Department of Posts, Government of India, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director Postal Services, Central Region, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division. Sasaram,
Pin -821115.
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :-
: Mrs. P.R. Laxmi, ld. ASC
Reserved on 24.11.2025 Order Pronounced on
ORDER
PER : NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI,
I, MEMBER (J) :
Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
relief:
"8(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the SPOs Sasaram Memo No.BNo.B- 1/OS/Clerk/M.Kr.(Loose) dated 30.05.2016. 8(ii) That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to join the duty.
MANORDigitally 8(iii) Any other relief/reliefs as your Lordships may deem signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN fit and proper in the interest of justice. KUMAR SINHA SINHA
2 OA N0. 180 of 2017
2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant as emerged from the pleadings are that the applicant was provisionally selected for the post of Postal Assistant in Sasaram Postal Division by the office of Post Master General, Ranchi Region, Ranchi vide letter No.R&E.11/PA/ SA/93 dated 20/25th March, 1996 and at that time Ranchi Region was part of Bihar B Postal Circle Patna and Rohtas Division S Sasaram asaram was under jurisdiction of Postmaster, General, Ranchi Region Region. After fter creation of separate State of i.e Jharkhand, the Postal Circle, Ranchi, Sasaram Postal Division is under jurisdiction of Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. Thereafter, observing all formalities, a list of approved candidates in respect of recruitment was issued from the office of Post Master General, Ranchi vide letter No.R&E No.R&E-11/P.A./S.A./93 11/P.A./S.A./93 dated 20/25th March 1996.
4. After completion of all formalities and successful co completion mpletion of required training the applicant, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division, Sasaram, vide memo dated 4.101996 temporarily appointed the applicant and posted as P.A. in Sasaram H.O.
5. On 01.11.2006, a F.I.R. was registered by C.B.I., AC ACB, B, Ranchi against applicant alleging that applicant had not secured total 763 marks in I.Sc. Examination, 1989 conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. Thereafter, applicant was charge charge-sheeted sheeted Under Section 420 and 471 of I.P.C. and vide oorder rder dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate magistrate-cum-Special Special MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA J.M., CBI, Ranchi, he was convicted for sentence of 3 years and fine 3 OA N0. 180 of 2017 of Rs.5000/00 Under Section 420 of I.P.C. and further sentence of R.I. 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/-
Rs.5 Under Section 471 of I.P.C. by the J.M. C.B.I. Ranchi on 22.01.2016. Thereafter, the applicant was placed under suspension vide letter dated 16.03.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division, Sasaram.
6. The applicant, thereafter,, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand where his appeal against the conviction hhas admitted.. The he applicant has been granted bail too. Thereafter he submitted a representation dated 22.03.2016 addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sasaram for allowing him to continue on hhis is post. But, the SPOs Sasaram vide Memo No.B-1/OS/Clerk/M. 1/OS/Clerk/M. Kr (Loose) dated 22.03.2016 (Annexure A/6) communicated to regarding the decision of department that he is not a fit person to be retained in service and invited his representation regarding the above proposed penalty.
7. That the applicant again represented to SPOs Sasaram on 04.04.2016 in compliance to his letter of dated 22.03.2016 and requested to SPOs Sasaram to allow the applicant to continue on his post st till disposal of his appeal by higher court.
8. That SPOS Sasaram dismissed the applicant from service on 30.05.2016 vide Memo No.B-1/OS/Clerk/M.Kr.
1/OS/Clerk/M.Kr. (Loose) dated 30.05.2016.
9. That the applicant preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Central Central Region, Bihar Circle, Patna on 30.08.2016 MANORDigitally signed by annexing the copy of the same to SPOs Sasaram on 30.08.2016 stating ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA that the he committed no any wrong in the department during his duty 4 OA N0. 180 of 2017 period of about 20 years and he has been awarded extremely harsh penalty.
lty.
10. Further, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the order by which the applicant has been dismissed from the service is a non speaking and unreasoned order.. He also submitted that the applicant was appointed in service after completing all the necessary enquiry and verification of documents and he has rendered almost 20 years of satisfactory service. He relied upon the Judgement reported in SLJ 2014 (2) (CAT) 188, Shri Kishan Vs Union of India & Ors.
11. Written statement has been filedd by the opposite party. Itt has been stated by the learned counsel for opposite party that the applicant got the appointment on the basis of forged certificates and he has been convicted by the Hon'ble Court of law.. He further submitted that on 01.11.2006, 01.11.2006, a F.I.R. was registered by C.B.I., ACB, Ranchi against applicant, applicant alleging that applicant had not secured total 763 marks in I.Sc. Examination, 1989 conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna Patna. He was charge-sheeted sheeted Under Section 420 and 471 of I.P.C. and vide judgement dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate magistrate-cum--
Special J.M., CBI, Ranchi, he has been convicted for sentence of 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/00 Under Section 420 of I.P.C. and further sentence of R.I. 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/ Rs.5000/- Under Section 471 of I.P.C. by the J.M. C.B.I. Ranchi.
Ranchi Thereafter, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order/letter letter dated 16.03.2016 issued by the MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division, Sasaram.
KUMAR SINHA SINHA 5 OA N0. 180 of 2017
12. After conviction, Disciplinary Proceeding Under Rule Rule-19 19 of CCS (CC&A) (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the applicant and after giving sufficient opportunities to applicant to represent before the Disciplinary Authority, the order of dismissal from service was passed under Rule 19 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965.
13. Learned counsel for opposite parties further submitted that the ground of applicant that he has rendered 20 years of satisfactory service and he has been granted Bail by the Hon'ble High Court is not create a bar to pass the above penal order by the opposite party No.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order of competent authority regarding removal of applicant from his service is not illegal. The contentions made in O.A. has no force of law hence is liable to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for opposite osite part parties has filed the written argument also. Shee also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mithilesh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 5099 of 2020.
15. Heard the arguments of both the side and perused the record thoroughly. The facts transpires from perusal of record and submissions of counsels that a FIR has been lodged by the CBI, ACB, Ranchi against applicant for securing job on the basis of forged and manipulated documents of required qualifications. The Trial proceeded and he was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN Magistrate, - Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, Ranchi vide order dated KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 6 OA N0. 180 of 2017 22.01.2016 and sentenced se for 3 years imprisonment and Rs.5000/ Rs.5000/- as fine u/s 420 of IPC and R.I. of 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/ Rs.5000/- also u/s 471 of PIC. Accordingly, he was taken in custody. Further he was released on Bail.
16. The applicant has assailed the conviction orde orderr before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which is still pending. On the ground of above offence and conviction conviction, an inquiry was initiated by the department vide order dated 16.03.2016 16.03.2016, the applicant had been kept under suspension. Further, vi vide de order dated 22.03.2016 the authorities came to the conclusion that applicant is not a fit person to retain in service. Thereafter, they invited the representation from applicant on the point of above punishment. In compliance of above direction, the applicant applicant had submitted his representation which was considered by the authority. Learned counsel for applicant argued on this point that the authorities without considering the same and without considering the concerned rule and legal position passed the order der of his dismissal which has been challenged by the applicant before the Appellate Authority and the same is still pending hence the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is bad in the eye of law as it is without any reasoning and without discussin discussing the submission of applicant applicant.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party argued that the applicant had obtained the appointment on the post of Postal Assistant in Sasaram HO, HQ on the basis of fake and manipulated documents. Accordingly, the CBI, CBI, ACB on the instruction of higher authority authority,, MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA inquired the matter and after finding prima facie involvement of 7 OA N0. 180 of 2017 applicant for cheating and using the fake and manipulated documents of educational qualification they lodged FIR against the applicant in the year 1996.
1996. The Trial of the case was initiated and it was cont contested ested by the applicant properly.
properly The trial concluded in which the applicant was found guilty by the Court of Law, consequently, he was convicted and sentenced.
18. It depicts from the records that aafter fter conviction and sentence, the CBI sent a copy of judgement dated 22.01.2016 to the postal department for needful action by the their end. Accordingly, after considering the incarceration as well as conviction order of applicant the competent authority i.e Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas, Division Sasaram vide its letter dated 16.03.2016 placed the applicant under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter, departmental proceedings was initiated under CCS CCA Rule 1965 by the competent authority concerned who after considering the conviction competent order,, circumstances of the case and involvement of applicant in the offence, the competent authority proposed to remove him from service and he gave an opportunity for his personal hearing on 22.03.2016,, to explain the circumstances why the penal action should not be taken against him in terms of provisions of above Rules. In furtherance of above order of Superintendent of Post Offices, the applicant had submitted his representation representatio before him on 04.04.2016. Thereafter, the authorities considered the representation & antecedent of applicant and he passed his dismissal order on 30.05.2016. MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 8 OA N0. 180 of 2017
19. So far as argument of learned counsel for applicant that the order of dismissal is not a reasoned order and the authorities have not initiated any inquiry according to the provision of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1965 rather they have removed the applicant from the service whereas the applicant was appointed by the Authorities after proper proper consideration of his application and documents concerned.
20. The he records indicates that the FIR U/S 420 and 471 of IPC was lodged by the CBI, ACB after proper investigation of matter. As it has been mentioned by opposite parties in Para 2 of their written statement indicates and normally it has been seen that the standard of investigation which is adopted by I.O. of CBI/ACB in prima facie assessment regarding the involvement of alleged offender is much more different and exhaustive than the examinat examination ion of papers by the department of postal at time of appointment appointment.. The applicant had contested the criminal trial as he can. The criminal jurisprudence imposes liability on prosecution to prove the criminal charges beyond the shadow of doubt.
doubt The Court of law and after considering the fact and evidence on merit convicted and punished to applicant for committal of offence u/s 420 & 471 of IPC. The assessment of fact and evidence as prescribed for Court of Law is also much higher and exhaustive than inquiry inquiry of documents (at the time of appointment) by the government department, therefore the maker of law/rules rules have not imposed any duty of detailed inquiry to disciplinary authorities regarding the matter in which the government employee has already MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA been convicted on a criminal charge by the Court of Law. In this 9 OA N0. 180 of 2017 regard the concerned Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules only mandate the consideration of circumstances of the case and reasons for his satisfaction regarding the proposed penalty. Article 311 of Constitution of India also provide exception of detailed inquiry in Constitution cases where the government employees is convicted except upon the ground of his conduct which led to hi him convicted in a criminal case..
The reason behind it in our opinion is that if forged documents uments would have not been submitted at the time of his appointment the aapplicant pplicant would have not been able to get appointment in the public office. The applicant had used forged and manipulated document to get appointment in postal department.
department The he job for which the applicant got appointment is for welfare of general public and the government employee is always a public servant. The conduct Rule of Government employees employees require a fair and honest act and behaviour of public servant in common life too.. There Therefore any right and interest which has been acquired on the basis of forgery and offence, makes such right and interest ineffective and void ab initio. Hence where the offence of cheating and forgery ha has been committed by the Government Servant with the fraudulent and dishonesty intention just to get appointment in Government office he should not be permitted to perpetuate the offence, offence by continuing his posting as government employee.
21. The Superintendent of Post Offices has considered the conviction onviction order passed by the competent court which contains the role and evidence of offence committed by the applicant. Perusal of MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA contents of the letter dated 30.05.2016 read with letter dated 10 OA N0. 180 of 2017 22.03.2016 which is in continuation and both have been issued ued by the Superintendent of Post Offices reflects the ground of his satisfaction i.e. consideration of conviction order/judgement which contains the facts, circumstances and evidence which were, to his satisfaction, sufficient to through light upon all the circumstances of the case and factor set out as well as the conduct of applicant that has led to his conviction in criminal charges.
charges In the above context Para 4 of the letter dated 22.03.2016 is reproduced as under ::-
"And And whereas on careful consider consideration ation of the aforesaid CBI Court order (copy enclosed), the undersigned has provisionally come to the conclusion that Shri Manoj Kumar is not a fit person to be retained in service/ the gravity of the charges is such as to warrant the imposition of a major penalty and accordingly propres to impose on him the penalty of 'Dismissal from Service'.
Service'."
Such penal action of competent authority shall also give a messages to public at large that such offence will not make a government servant entitled to enjoy the right and interest attach with the government job.
22. Learned counsel for opposite parties also submitted that the letter dated 30.05.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices is in accordance with prescribed Performa containing the fact that applicant licant has been convicted on a criminal charges U/S 420 and 471 of IPC. The competent authority has also considered that the unethical act of applicant that led to his conviction and such act of public servant was illegal and undesirable, therefore rightly he has dismissed him from service with immediate effect. The format of proforma is appended under the chapter of 'Forms', it is 'Form No. 16' under MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA Annexure IV in CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
11 OA N0. 180 of 2017
23. In the case of Shri Kishan Vs Union of India & Ors, OA No. 428 of 2017 passed by Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow Bench on 27.01.2014, after considering the judgtement rendered by the Hon'ble 27.01.2014, Allahabd High Court in the case of Sadanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. (2000)(18)LCD 88, 88, and the Judgement of Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of UP and Ors (2009) 2 UPLBEC 121 and in case of Vijay Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and others, 1996 (14) LCD 126 passed the order that where the termination order is passed on the basis of only conviction order without considering considering the conduct of government servant which led to his conviction is liable to be set aside aside. Factually,, fact of the present case is different, with the aforesaid judgement. The record shows that the order passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices date dated d 22.03.2016 and 30.05.2016 were passed after proper consideration of conviction order and the proper application of judicious mind in respect of conduct of applicant which provided him the ground to conclud that the applicant was not entitled to be retain retained ed in job which he hadd obtained on the basis of forged and fraudulent document which has led to his conviction by the competent Court of Law.
24. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mithilesh Prasad vs The State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 5099 of 2020 the Hon'ble Court has considered the similar facts and held in i Para 19 and 20 that :
19. So far the issue with regard to the power of the disciplinary authority to inflict the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, in view of conviction by a criminal Court, it would be worth MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN benefiting to quote Article 311 (2)(a), hereunder:
hereunder:-
KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA "6. Article 311(2) declares that no 2024:PATHC:121183 Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19 dt.19-12-2024 2024 12 OA N0. 180 of 2017 12/21 person, who is a member of the civil service of the Union or All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has as been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The second proviso, however, carves out three exceptions to the said rule. We are concerned with the first exception mentioned under clause (a). Insofar as it is relevant, the second proviso reads as follows:
"Provided further that this clause shall not apply apply--
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge."
20. Bare reading of the aforenoted provision, there would not be any uncertainty that in any event, where the government servant is sought to be inflicted punishment of dismissal/removal or reduction in rank, an enquiry after informing the charges against him and giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of each of the charges is sine qua non. However, the proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) clearly envisages that such enquiry after framing of charge and giving a reasonabl reasonablee opportunity of being heard would not be necessary, where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of misconduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge."
25 In the aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble High Court in Paragraph agraphs 17, 19 and 20 by considering the case of Suryadev Singh Vs the State of Bihar & Ors (2011) 1 PLJR 28 held that :-
"17. It is true that under proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, it has been envisaged that such inquiry after framing of charges and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges would not be necessary where a personson is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on a ground of the conduct which has led to his conviction of a criminal charge. However, there is nothing in Article 311 of the Constitution of India which says that even notice is not required to be given to such a persons who is sought to be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of his conviction of a criminal charge. In the considered opinion of this Court, proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India only suggests that the req requirement uirement of a regular departmental enquiry which begins with the framing of charge, continues with the leading of evidence by MANORDigitally way of giving opportunity of hearing and concluding it by an appropriate order of punishment is not required to be gone signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA into in thee cases in which government servants are removed 13 OA N0. 180 of 2017 from service on the ground of conviction by a court of law in a criminal case. It therefore appears to this Court that as a matter of fact even when the procedure of a regular departmental proceeding would nnot ot be required to be followed in case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on the ground of conviction in a criminal cases, even in those cases it would be absolutely necessary to issue notice and/or afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person that there is a tentative decision to inflict him with such punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank because his conduct on the basis of the specific criminal charge which led to his conviction did not render him fit to continue in the Government service or the post which he was holding prior to his conviction.
19. It is not in doubt that removal from service under rule 14 is a major penalty under Rule 14(IX). If in this context, the exhaustive provision under rule 17 laying down the procedure rocedure for imposing major penalty is taken into consideration, it would be absolutely clear that only such procedure for imposition of penalties was not to be followed in the case of a Government servant who had been convicted on a criminal charge. Rule 20 of the Rules infact lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 17 to 19 where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority may con consider sider the circumstances of the case and make such order thereon as it deems fit.
20. The second proviso to rule 20 infact answers the question in hand where it has been said that the government servant may be given an opportunity of making representatio representation n on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under rule 20(i) of the Rules. Thus, from the reading of rule 20(i) of the Rules and its second proviso, it is absolutely clear that even in cases where penalty is to be imposed, ei either ther major or minor in terms of rule 14, the government servant is required to be given an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before an order is made on the ground of conviction on a criminal charge."
26. Hon'ble court ourt has also considered the judgement of Subrata Basu Vs State of Bihar and Others (2013) 3 PLJR 608 wherein, in the context of conduct of government servant servant, the Court held that rule is required to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty and to do MANORDigitally signed by nothing othing which is unbecome of a government servant. Hon'ble court ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 14 OA N0. 180 of 2017 has also considered the judgement passed in Sarju Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 285 on the above point.
27. So far as the argument of learned counsel for applicant regarding the fact that the applicant has been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court and his Appeal. It has been held in Para 20 of the judgement of Mithilesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar (supra) is that :-
24. So far the plea taken by the petitioner with regard to the suspension of the sentence and the pendency of the revision application against the order of the Appellate Court, it is well settled that suspension of sentence or release on bail by the app appellate ellate Court does not render the provision of proviso (a) Article 311 (2) inoperative. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 377 in no uncertauncertain in term held that clause (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India speaks of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. It does not speak of sentence or punishment awarded.
Merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the ac accused cused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, although empowers the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence or the order appealed against or to release the accused on bail and does not expressly speak of suspension of conviction; though in certain situations, the appellate Court may also have the power to suspend the conviction. This Court deems it apt to encapsulate relevant paragraphs for appreciation of the issue framed here herein;
"9. The Tribunal seems to be of the opinion that until the appeal against the conviction is disposed of, action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is not permissible. We see no basis or justification for the said view. The more appropriate riate course in all such cases is to take action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the case may be. If, however, the governmen governmentt servantaccused is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to had he continued in service. The other course suggested, viz., to wait till the appeal, revision and other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court. It should be MANORDigitally signed by remembered that the action under clause (a) of the second ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR proviso to Article 311(2) will be taken only where the conduct SINHA SINHA which has led to his conviction is such that it deserves any of 15 OA N0. 180 of 2017 the three major punishments mentioned in Article 311(2). As held by this Court in Shank Shankarar Dass v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 358 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 444 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 242] :
(SCC p. 362, para 7) "Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution confers on the Government the power to dismiss a person from service 'on tthehe ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge'. But that power like every other power has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted forr parking his scooter in a noparking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable wwhen hen a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly."
25. Similar view was again reiterated by the H Hon'ble on'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. K. Guruswamy, (1996) 7 SCC 114. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar, (1997) 7 SCC 514, while upholding the order of dismissal from a convicted employee has observed that if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a government servant on a misconduct which led to his conviction by the court of law does not lose its efficacy merely because the appellate court has suspended the eexecution xecution of sentence.
26. In the light of the settled legal position and the aforementioned discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that neither the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner nor the pendency of the revision could have stood ood in the way of the charges in dismissing the petitioner from service, once the petitioner has been served with the show-cause cause notice and his reply was duly considered, as discussed hereinabove.
28. As a matter of law, if the applicant gets success in aappeal ppeal which was filed by him against the conviction order and sentence,,, it is needless to say that the order imposing the penalty shall be liable to be set aside.
29. So far argument of learned counsel for applicant that the DoPT letter No. 105/52/77-DISCII 105/52/77 SCII dated 03 August 1977 and letter No. 113/21/81 viz III dated 23rd December 1985 is concerned which deals MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR with the consideration of the conduct of the government employee SINHA SINHA 16 OA N0. 180 of 2017 that has already been considered by the competent authority in present case who has imposed the penalty after providing him the opportunity of hearing.
30. Having considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, material available on record and provisions of concerning rules we are of the considered view tthat hat being devoid of merit, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(
Member(J)
mks
MANORDigitally
signed by
ANJAN MANORAN
KUMAR JAN
KUMAR
SINHA SINHA