The court established that the conviction by a criminal court justifies the removal of a police personnel from service, and no further enquiry is necessary as per the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings and Art.311(2) of the Constitution.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner was working as Head Constable in the Cochin City Traffic Asst. Commissioner's Office.

2. Petitioner was an accused in C.C. No. 162 of 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi, for offences punishable under Ss.419,420 and 34 IPC. While disposing of the calendar case the Criminal Court ordered as follows

"30. In the light of the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has clearly proved the offences punishable under Ss.419,420&34IPC. Accordingly points 1 to 3 are found in favour of the prosecution.

31. Heard the accused on the question of sentence.

32. Considering the nature of the offences I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. On the other hand, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused deserve deterrent punishment. The first accused is police constable. It is persons like A1, who brings a bad name to the entire police force. It is the experience of the public that the police force is infiltrated with criminal elements like A1 who cheat, loot and harass the public as in the present case. In the circumstances, each of the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under S.419 and 34 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three months). Each of the accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months under S.420 and 34 of the IPC. The fine amount, if paid, shall be given as compensation to PW1 under S.357 of the Cr.P.C. Bail bonds are cancelled. Sentence shall run consecutively".

3. On the basis of the above mentioned judgment of the criminal court, first respondent issued Ext. P1 order dated 4.4.1997 under paragraph 64(2) of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings, removing the petitioner from service. Consequently, he was also directed to vacate the quarters as per notice dated 16.6.1997. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders.

4. According to petitioner, against the order of Judicial Magistrate Court he has filed Crl. A.No. 98 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and in Crl.M.P. No. 622 of 1997, the sentence against the petitioner was suspended, and he was released on bail. According to petitioner, since the sentence has been suspended, respondents have no legal right to terminate his service.

5. Question that has come up for consideration is as to whether respondents have got power under paragraph 64 of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings read with R.17(c)(ii) Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1958 to remove a police personnel when he is convicted by a criminal court. R.17 is extracted below:

"Procedure for imposing certain penalties:- (1)00 After the competent authority has examined the proceedings of inquiry and has recorded his finding under R.6(ir) he shall come to a conclusion regarding the penalty to be imposed, except in cases where no charge-shave been made out. (b) In all cases where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties mentioned in clauses 0), (k), (1) and (m) of sub-r.(1) of R.15, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall call upon the member of the service to show cause with in a reasonable time, not exceeding one month, against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted. The member of the service shall also served with a copy of the report of inquiry together with the findings thereon. The representation if any submitted by the member of the service shall be taken into consideration before the final order imposing the penalty is passed by the competent authority. Where the competent authority is the Government and it thinks on a consideration of such representation of the member of the service that any of the p