1. Government servant convicted of criminal offences and dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules pending appeal against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G T Nanavati, S C Agarwal
UNION OF INDIA, APPELLANT
VERSUS
V. K. BHASKAR, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 3812 of 1992, decided on January 30, 1996.
Important Points
A government servant can be dismissed under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules (Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution) upon conviction, even if an appeal is pending or the sentence is suspended, provided the conduct leading to conviction renders their further retention in public service undesirable.
Subject
Employment Law - Dismissal
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.19(i)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.311(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.477(a), S.120(b), S.409
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.311(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.477(a), S.120(b), S.409
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 311(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 120-B r/w 409 and 477-A – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 389 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5(1) (c) r/w 5(2) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 19 – Criminal breach of trust - Respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk in Delhi Administration - He was prosecuted for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Special Judge, by judgment convicted respondent for said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine and on default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months - Respondent has filed an appeal in High Court against his conviction and sentence for said offences under said judgment - During pendency of said appeal, an order was passed by Superintending Engineer, whereby respondent was dismissed from service with effect - Said order was passed under Rule 19(i) of the Central – Held, court are unable to hold that order dismissing respondent from service has not been passed in accordance with requirements of Rule 19(i) of Rules, as construed by this Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ((1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) 5CR 131 388) - For reasons aforementioned, impugned judgment of Tribunal cannot be sustained and has to be set aside - It is, however, made clear that in case respondent is acquitted in appeal filed by him, a which is said to be still pending in High Court, he can move the authorities for review of said order of dismissal as per the law laid down by this Court - Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of Tribunal is set aside and OA filed by respondent before Tribunal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether dismissal under Rule 19(i) is permissible during a pending appeal and whether the disciplinary authority sufficiently considered the employee's conduct. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Conviction remains operative despite suspended sentences or bail; disciplinary authorities may dismiss employees based on conduct leading to conviction without awaiting appeal outcomes. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Dismissal of a government servant under Article 311(2) proviso (a) is permissible upon conviction, regardless of pending appeals or suspended sentences. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed, Tribunal's judgment set aside, and the original application dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. Can a government servant be dismissed if their conviction is under appeal?
Yes. Action under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution can be taken once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge, without waiting for the outcome of an appeal or revision. (Para 4 )
7. Does the suspension of a sentence or grant of bail prevent dismissal based on conviction?
No. The suspension of a sentence or release on bail does not make the conviction cease to be operative, and therefore does not bar proceedings for dismissal or removal. (Para 4 )
8. What is the requirement for a disciplinary authority when dismissing an employee under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules?
The authority must consider the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the government servant which led to the conviction to determine if retention in service is undesirable. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 )
9. Is a charge-sheet or show-cause notice required for dismissal under Rule 19(i) following a court conviction?
No, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice is not necessary for dismissing a government servant who has been found guilty by a court of law under the special procedure of Rule 19(i). (Para 2 , 9 )
ORDER
1. The respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Delhi Administration. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 477-A IPC and Section 5(1) (c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, Jalandhar, by judgment dated 17-5-1985 convicted the respondent for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and on default in the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The respondent has filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence for the said offences under the said judgment dated 17-5-1985. During the pendency of the said appeal, an order dated 20-11 - 1986 was passed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle No. V (DA), New Delhi, whereby the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 22-11-1986. The said order was passed under Rule 19(i) of the Central Ci
2. The order of dismissal reads as under :
"Public Works Department (Delhi Admn.) No. 2(1) /86-PWDCV (DA) /EII/76 15-32 dated the 20-11-1986 OFFICE ORDER Whereas Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaskar, UDC now attached to Dy. Director of Hort. Development Division No. II (DA), New Delhi has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 5(1) (c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 477-A IPC, 120-B IPC and has been awarded penalty of RI for one year and fine of Rs 500 by Special Judge, Jalandhar on 17-5-1985. And whereas, it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaskar which has led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in the public service undesirable/the gravity of the charge is such as to warrant the imposition of a major penalty for misappropriation of a sum of Rs 300 (approx.) along with other accused, Man Singh, Jawala Das and Kewal Chander Kumar. The necessary advice was sought for from the Ministry of Law and Justice through Chief Engineer (Food) D. G. (W) for taking follow-up action against the accused officials under the Ministry of Law and Justice vide his No. U. D. I. D. Dy. No. 2551- AV/86 dated 17-7-1986. The Ministry of Law and Justice has given the advice that the accused persons are required to be dismissed under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, without issuing any charge-sheet or show- cause notice, who have been found guilty by court of law. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, undersigned here dismisses the said Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaskar, UDC from service with effect from 22-1-1986 forenoon. sdA (Er. N. H. Chandwani) Superintending Engineer PWD Circle No. V (DA), New Delhi."
3. Rule 19 of the Rules prescribes the special procedure in certain cases. At the relevant time, clause (i) of Rule 19 read as under :
"19. Special procedure in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18-(i) where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii)-(iii) the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit :"
4. Rule 19(i) of the Rules is based on clause (a) of the proviso to subarticle (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. Construing the said proviso to Article 311(2), this Court, in Dy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. NagoorMeeral has held : (SCC pp. 380-82, paras 7-10) "This clause, it is relevant to notice, speaks of conduct which has led his conviction on a criminal charge. It does not speak of sentence or punishment awarded. Merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. Section 389 of the Code of Crim
