Point of law: removal of disqualification” under Section 12 of the Act does not affect the power of the employer to dismiss a delinquent employee as per service rules upon conviction. We choose not to make any comment with regard to this issue as the second respondent/employer himself had chosen to recall the order of dismissal upon suspension of sentence and release of the delinquent employee on probation

ORDER :

1. Order of the Tribunal refusing the prayer to set aside the dismissal order of the delinquent employee dated 15.06.2008 which came to be affirmed by the appellate authority is the subject matter of challenge at the behest of his legal representatives.

2. Facts of the present case portray a paradoxical situation. Second petitioner, the estranged wife and one of the legal representatives of the deceased employee, is employee, the latter threatened and criminally intimidated the superior officer with the originator of the present imbroglio. Being aggrieved by the ill-treatment at the hands of the deceased employee, she had instituted criminal proceedings against him under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Infuriated by the decision of his superior officer to handover articles from the police department stores to the second petitioner-wife on credit from the salary of the delinquent dire consequences. Such misconduct became the subject matter of the criminal proceedings being C.C. No. 31 of 2004 wherein the delinquent employee was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(2) I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months on each count. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated on self same facts against the delinquent employee. Pursuant to his conviction, vide order dated 09.05.2005 the second respondent dismissed him from service on the ground that he had been convicted in the criminal case. In revision, however, this Court vide order dated 10.12.2007 while upholding the conviction released the delinquent employee under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) on condition he executed a personal bond for good behaviour for a period of two years. In view of the aforesaid development by order dated 13.04.2008, the delinquent employee came to be reinstated, however, without prejudice to the enquiry pending against him. In conclusion of enquiry proceedings, by order dated 15.06.2008 the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and again dismissed him from service. Appellate authority confirmed such order. Delinquent employee assailed such order before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 12509 of 2009. During pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he died and his legal representatives including the aforesaid estranged wife Smt. P. Raja Ratnam were substituted as legal heirs on his behalf. By impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the O.A. and upheld order of dismissal. Hence, the present writ petition at the behest of the legal representatives of the deceased employee.

3. Sri. B. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case had been instituted on self-same facts. He was convicted and sentenced in the criminal case. While disposing of the criminal revision against the order of conviction, the Court released the petitioner on probation so that his service would not be affected. Accordingly, he was reinstated, but unfortunately, again dismissed in the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Penalty imposed is, therefore, disproportionate and contrary to the findings of this Court in the criminal proceedings.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the delinquent employee was found guilty on self-same charges not only by the criminal Court but also in the disciplinary proceedings. Invoking Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the second respondent was justified in dismissing the petitioner. No interference is called for in the matter.

5. Ordinarily, this Court in exercise of judicial review would not sit in judgment over punishment imposed on a delinquent. However, the present case portrays a peculiar state of affairs. Delinquent employee was prosecuted both in the criminal Court as well as in the disciplinary procee