Dismissal of a government employee under Article 311(2)(a) does not require a departmental inquiry if based on conviction for a criminal charge, provided the authority acts within its powers.

JUDGMENT :

This Court has heard Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 2839/2019 dated 29.06.2019, issued by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as, “BSEB”), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

3. The factual matrix of the case, as culminated from the materials available on record are enumerated hereinbelow. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Routine Clerk by the Secretary of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna on 06.12.1988. On account of merger of the Council with the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board, the petitioner became employee of the BSEB, on condition mentioned at the time of merger. Having been found eligible, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer by the letter dated 10.09.1999.

4. While the petitioner was discharging the duties of verification of mark-sheet and testimonial, in the meanwhile, on account of the charge of extorting money, in course of verification of Intermediate certificate of one Barinder Singh, a case has been instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for his fraudulent acts and cheating. The criminal case was numbered as R.C. 09 of 2012(S) CBI/Spl and finally resulted into conviction of the petitioner along with other accused persons, vide judgment dated 27.11.2014, for the offences under Section 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years under all the Sections, except Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-. So far the other Sections are concerned, the petitioner has been imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each head. The copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

5. The petitioner on being aggrieved, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1-S/10 of 2015, wherein, the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 12.07.2019 has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Against the order aforenoted, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the learned High Court of Himachal Pradesh through Cr. M. P. No. 1336 of 2019, wherein the learned Court after hearing the parties has been pleased to suspend the sentence affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 12.07.2019.

6. In view of the conviction of the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary (Establishment), BSEB, Patna vide his Letter No. 2063/2019 dated 02.05.2019 issued show-cause notice, in terms of the Letter No. 7820 dated 28.10.2003 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his show-cause explanation on 11.05.2019, stating therein that the order of sentence has already been suspended till disposal of the case, apart from some other plea. Despite the aforesaid position, the Secretary of the Board vide Memo No. 2839/2019 dated 29.06.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service, which order is put to challenge before this Court.

7. The representation preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of dismissal also came to be rejected by the Joint Secretary (Establishment), BSEB on 27.09.2019, which was served upon him on 15.09.2022; this order is also challenged by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 02 of 2022.

8. Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of dismissal has made specific contention that the petitioner was appointed as Class-III employee; since the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Chairman of the Board, as per the provision contained in BSEB Act, 1952, it is the Chairman, who alone had the power of initiating departmental proceeding a