Point of Law: Service Law - Dismissal of Service - Justified - Charges for conviction more heinous in nature - Petitioner’s appeal is still pending before this Court - Grant of bail to the petitioner in such appeal will not come to his rescue.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.:

1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated August 5, 2013 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, the Tribunal) in OA 1423 of 2012 (Jagadish Chandra Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)[the Original Application]. The Original Application was dismissed and the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on the ground of conviction suffered by the petitioner in criminal case, was affirmed.

2. The petitioner was employed as constable at Howrah District Police Force. He was then charged with gross indiscipline conduct and dereliction of duty. The petitioner was arrested being involved in P.S. Case No. 4 dated January 22, 1987 and Barrackpore, P.S. Case No. 10 and 11 dated August 28, 1987 under Sections 429, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) as he forged the Railway warrants during 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 in the name of both fictious and genuine persons in his official capacity and wrongly gained money by making false entries in the relevant documents. He remained in custody till May, 1987. Charge sheets was issued.

3. The petitioner was also involved in Titagarh, P.S. Case No. 297 dated October 27, 1989 under Section 498A and 306 of IPC as his wife was forced to commit suicide. He was arrested in this criminal case on October 27, 1989 and remained in custody till January 25, 1990. Necessary charge Sheet was filed. He was convicted by learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas and was in custody for the period from September 24, 1992 till November 23, 1992. He was then released on bail on November 24, 1992 granted by High Court and the criminal appeal is still pending.

4. The enquiry proceeding was initiated by the Police Department. In the enquiry report some of the charges were proved against the petitioner and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was intimated to the petitioner on December 1, 2010. On the basis of the said enquiry report, a Show Cause Notice was issued on December 11, 2010.

5. On the basis of the said enquiry report disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on January 31, 2011 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 864 of the Police Regulation of Bengal (PRB), 1943 (for short, 1943 Regulation) and consequential directions were also passed in the said order.

6. Being aggrieved by the final order the petitioner preferred the departmental appeal. By an order dated September 27, 2012 the appellate authority rejected the appeal and upheld the said final order dated January 31, 2011. The said appellate order was challenged in the Original Application in which the impugned order was passed.

7. Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that, arising out of the criminal case filed against the petitioner and against the conviction thereunder the petitioner preferred appeal before this High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1992, which was admitted vide order dated November 23, 1992 and he was granted bail. However, the appeal is still pending. Mr. Nandi then submitted that, the appeal is a continuation of the original criminal case/sessions case in which the coordinate bench of this Court, on a prima facie satisfaction in favour of the petitioner, granted him bail. Therefore, the employer and its enquiring or disciplinary authority including the appellate authority had no authority to hold him guilty and dismiss him from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Regulation 864 of the 1943 Regulation and submitted that, a Police Officer sentenced by a Court, as in the present case, for an offense not implying moral turpitude shall ordinarily be dismissed; but, in trivial cases some lenient form of punishment than dismissal may be awarded or the offe