Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt. And ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12433 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8178 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working on the post of Head Head Operator (Technician), U.P. Police Radio, Mahanagar, Lucknow, when a first information report was lodged against him on 23.07.2007, being Case Crime No. 138 of 2007, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station - Kauria, District - Gonda. It is stated that the petitioner was taken into custody and was lodged in jail since 23.07.2007 and was released on bail on 29.10.2007.
3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial of the aforesaid criminal case against petitioner concluded on 28.02.2011, resulting in conviction of petitioner were he was sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/-. Similarly, on the basis of order of conviction dated 28.02.2011, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from service by means of order dated 24.06.2011 (which was corrected on 12.07.2011).
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had approached this Court assailing the order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2012 - Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others. This Court considering the provisions of Rule 8(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1991"), by means of order dated 05.01.2023, came to the conclusion that no reasons have been given by the respondents while terminating services of the petitioner and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination, liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
5. It is in compliance of judgment and order of this Court dated 05.04.2013, that fresh order dated 03.03.2023 has been passed by the respondents in the matter of petitioner, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.
6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the previous occasion the order of termination was set aside only on the ground that respondents had failed to give any reason for passing the order of termination which was passed automatically on the conviction of petitioner invoking provisions of Rule 8(2)(a) & (b) of the Rules, 1991 and the present impugned order also suffers from same infirmity inasmuch as, again the respondents have failed to record any reason specially relating to the conduct of petitioner leading to his conviction, and for this reason the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.
7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that once a Police Officer has been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then the competent authority would be within its jurisdiction to pass order of termination and there is no provisions of granting any opportunity of hearing at this stage as it is based solely on the order of conviction of a Government servant.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the bare perusal of impugned orders dated 03.03.2023 and 15.09.2023, it is clear that the respondents have merely recorded the aspect of conviction of petitioner by the Court of competent jurisdiction, in the trial where the petitioner was held guilty for offence under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/5 of the Explosives Act.
10. In the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 has merely recorded the factum of conviction of petitioner and held that once petitioner has been convicted, then in the light of provisions of Rule 8(2)(a) and (b) of the Rules, 1991 services of petitioner are liable to be terminated and accordingly has terminated petitioner's services.
11. The question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether any reasons are to be recorded by the competent authority while passing order of termination of services of a Government servant, pursuant to the order of conviction or merely the order of conviction itself was sufficient to terminate services of a Police Officer.
12. It is noticed that the said issue was duly considered by this Court in the case of Sada Nand Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another - Writ Petition No. 2464 (S/B) of 1994 (decided on 03.12.1992). In the said judgment this Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190. This Court in the case of Sada Nand Mishra (supra) has observed as under :-
"19. It will be noticed that in recording the above principles, the Supreme Court over-ruled its previous judgment in Divisional Officer, Southern Railway and Another V. T.R. Challappan [1976 (1) SCR 783].
20. The principles enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court are :
(1) On the conviction of an employee on a criminal charge, the order of punishment cannot be passed unless the conduct which had led to his conviction is also considered.
(2) The scrutiny or examination of conduct of an employee leading to his conviction is to be done ex-parte and an opportunity of hearing is not to be provided for this purpose to the employee.
21. In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Patel's case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing at the time of scrutiny of his conduct which has led to his conviction, cannot be accepted."
13. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Writ A No. 14570 of 2009 (decided on 07.01.2020), has considered similar issue and in para 14 has held as under :-
"14. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tulsiram Patel (supra), T.R. Chellapan (supra) and Shankar Das (supra), and two Division Bench judgments of this court in Shyam Narain Shukla (supra) and Sadanand Mishra (supra), it can safely be concluded that while removing the petitioner from service, the respondents were bound to consider the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction in the session trial. This was the condition precedent for the competent authority to acquire jurisdiction to impose punishment of removal from service. However, the impugned order is unfortunately silent and does not show consideration of conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction in the S.T. No.178 of 2005. It was necessary for the respondents, while passing the impugned order, to consider the conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction and then to decide what punishment is to be inflicted upon him. This has not been done by the respondent No.2 while removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed."
14. Considering the aforesaid legal proposition and also considering the provisions of Rule 8(4)(b) of the Rules, 1991, it is noticed that even where an officer is convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, he is liable to be dismissed only where offence involves "moral turpitude". Accordingly, the competent authority has to apply its mind and give definitive finding as to whether any person was involved in the offence or not. To arrive at such a conclusion, the competent authority has to look into the conduct of Government servant as discussed in the order of the trial Court and only thereafter, by giving reasons, shall pass order of dismissal of Police Officer.
15. Accordingly, no order passed without discussing the conduct of the Government servant is merely an order passed on the basis of conviction, and the same would be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 8(4)(b) of the Rules, 1991.
16. The impugned order clearly does not deal with the conduct of the petitioner and despite specific directions having been issued by this Court on previous occasion for giving reasons, the competent authority has evaded the compliance of the previous judgment and order of this Court dated 05.01.2023 and it is for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 03.03.2023 and 15.09.2023, being illegal and arbitrary, are accordingly set aside.
17. The writ petition is allowed.
18. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 - State Radio Officer, (Admin.), U.P. Police Radio, Mahanagar, Lucknow to pass fresh order in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the competent authority shall pass fresh order after considering the directions of this Court referred to herein above, with expedition, say within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)