Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Manoj Kumar Kalita - Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and Others - Respondent
WP(C) No. 265 of 2019
Decided on : 25-05-2021
The petitioner, a Senior Judicial Assistant in the Gauhati High Court, was dismissed from service after being convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the conviction was not honourable, and that the High Court could not have overruled the earlier decision of a Committee constituted to deal with all matters relating to Officers and Staff of the High Court, which had recommended that the petitioner need not be penalized. The Court held that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his arrest and pending criminal case from the High Court, which amounted to a grave misconduct. The Court also held that the Administrative Committee was within its power to recommend the dismissal of the petitioner, as the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and the offence involved moral turpitude. The Court further held that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the charge proved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Judicial Assistant in the Gauhati High Court, was dismissed from service after being convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the conviction was not honourable, and that the High Court could not have overruled the earlier decision of a Committee constituted to deal with all matters relating to Officers and Staff of the High Court, which had recommended that the petitioner need not be penalized.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his arrest and pending criminal case from the High Court, which amounted to a grave misconduct. The Court also held that the Administrative Committee was within its power to recommend the dismissal of the petitioner, as the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and the offence involved moral turpitude. The Court further held that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the charge proved.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had concealed the fact of his arrest and pending criminal case from the High Court, which amounted to a grave misconduct. Whether the Administrative Committee was within its power to recommend the dismissal of the petitioner, as the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and the offence involved moral turpitude. Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his arrest and pending criminal case from the High Court, which amounted to a grave misconduct. The Court also held that the Administrative Committee was within its power to recommend the dismissal of the petitioner, as the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and the offence involved moral turpitude. The Court further held that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the charge proved.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority of the High Court for modification of the penalty of dismissal, for awarding a lesser penalty including reinstatement in service by taking into consideration all the relevant factors and dismissal of this petition should not come in the way of such exercise.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati High Court and Mr. D. Nath, learned Govt, advocate for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was serving as a Senior Judicial Assistant in this court, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from the High Court Service, on conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against him wherein an adverse finding was given against him, which was acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority for dismissing him from service.
3. For better appreciation of the issues involved in this writ petition, the relevant facts as can be gleaned from the pleadings may be stated as follows.
4. The petitioner entered service of the Gauhati High Court having been appointed as a Lower Division Assistant/Junior Administrative Assistant on compassionate ground vide order dated 28.9.2000, after the death of his father who was also serving in this High Court. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Senior Administrative Assistant vide order dated 30.7.2007.
5. It appears that sometime in the month of October 2012, the Registry of this court received intimation from the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati about the judgment and order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the aforesaid court in Sessions Case No. 190 (K)/2006 convicting the petitioner and others under section 304, Part I read with section 149 of the IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.
6. The High Court on being informed of conviction of the petitioner, initiated the process for disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and placed him under suspension as per resolution of the Administrative Committee held on 10.10.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 12.10.2012. Thereafter, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 13.12.2012.
7. It may be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portions of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13.12.2012, as it will have a bearing on the claim of the petitioner in this proceeding and merit of the case.
1. “That prior to your appointment as Junior Administrative Assistant in the Registry of the Gauhati High Court, a Case No. 247/96, under section 147/148/149/326/302 of the IPC was registered against you in the Chandmari Police Station. Subsequently, a Sessions Case No. 190(K)/06 was instituted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Guwahati in which you were held guilty under section 304, Part-I read with section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 only. On 30.7.2007, you were also promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant.
At no point of time, you informed the High Court regarding the pendency of the said criminal case against you which amounts to grave misconduct on the part of a Government servant.
You are, therefore, charged accordingly”
8. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 25.3.2013 to the show cause notice. As to what he had stated in the reply to the show cause notice would be also relevant as regards the factual position of the case from the perspective of the petitioner which also can be also taken note by this court for ascertaining the material facts of the case.
A disciplinary authority must assess an employee's conduct in light of a criminal conviction before imposing dismissal, considering moral turpitude and overall service record.
Point of law: Mere acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidate to the post concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that ....
The acquittal in a criminal case, not being an honourable acquittal, does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement. The employer's concern regarding the integrity, honesty, and trust....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of acquittal in a criminal case, when read with the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities, can result in a clean slate for th....
Acquittal by benefit of doubt in criminal case does not constitute honourable acquittal and does not vitiate disciplinary dismissal for falsified date of birth, given differing proof standards.
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee reinstatement for public servants, especially if integrity concerns persist following a conviction overturned on technical grounds.
The court emphasized that the enhancement of penalty, the nature of the petitioner's acquittal, and the proportionality of the punishment were crucial in reaching its decision.
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 appea....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
