The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee's removal based on a criminal conviction can be justified under the applicable employment rules and the gravity of the offense.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is arising out of order dated 27.07.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 1439/2011, dismissing the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner was initially an employee of the Department of Telecommunication and later on, on establishment of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, he became the employee of MTNL.

3. The Petitioner was absorbed in the services of MTNL. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in the year 1987, registered a case against the Petitioner and two others, namely Govind Singh and Hans Raj and, at the same time, the Department also initiated disciplinary proceedings.

4. A charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the Petitioner as well as to Govind Singh and Hans Raj. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was not proved against the Petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30.04.1990. Finally, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 04/07.03.1991, based upon the enquiry report, passed an order exonerating the Petitioner of the alleged misconduct. However, the other two persons were held guilty and punishment was inflicted upon them.

5. The CBI in the criminal case filed a Charge-sheet and finally the Trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2007, convicted all the three persons, including the Petitioner and the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Section 409 IPC. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

6. The records of the case further reveal that in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, the identically placed employees i.e. Govind Singh and Hans Raj were inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two increments and in respect of Shri Hans Raj, the charge sheet was quashed.

7. The Petitioner, after his conviction, was placed under suspension by an order dated 05.01.2010 and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 07.01.2010 directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be put to an end on account of conviction in a criminal case. The Petitioner did submit his reply on 25.01.2010 and finally an order was passed on 22.06.2010 removing the Petitioner from service and the Petitioner did submit an appeal dated 14.07.2010 against the order dated 22.06.2010 and, at the same time, filed an Original Application i.e. O.A. No. 2853/2010 before the CAT challenging his suspension as well as removal.

8. The appeal was dismissed on 29.12.2010 during the pendency of the Original Application and he withdrew the Original Application with the liberty to file a fresh Original Application. The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred another Original Application i.e. O.A. No. 1439/2011 being aggrieved by the order of suspension and order of removal and the CAT by impugned order dated 27.07.2012 has set aside the suspension, however, the order of removal has been affirmed.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the incident on the basis of which the Petitioner has been subjected to criminal trial is of the year 1987. At the relevant point of time when the misconduct took place, he was an employee of Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and his service conditions were governed under the statutory provisions as contained under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He submits that the Petitioner was permanently absorbed in MTNL w.e.f 01.11.1998 and consequent upon his absorption, he stood retired from the services of the Central Government and, therefore, the rules and regulations applicable to MTNL employees are applicable to him.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has v