Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard and perused the material available on record.

2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order Annex.4 dated 31.3.2015 whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The petitioner was working on the post of Helper at Pump House in P.H.E.D. He was trapped red handed by the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau on 28.1.2008 while accepting a bribe of Rs.800/-. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, ACD Court, Jodhpur tried the petitioner and vide judgment dated 7.1.2015, convicted and sentenced him for the aforesaid offences. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.105/2015 has been admitted by this Court and the sentences awarded to the petitioner were suspended by order dated 3.2.2015. The Chief Engineer of the respondent department passed the order Annex.4 dated 31.3.2015 whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service considering the fact of the petitioner’s conviction to be a justifiable reason. The legality and validity of the above order is assailed in the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unjust and thus, deserves to be set aside. He stressed upon the fact that as per the language of Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority was required to objectively and exhaustively consider the conduct leading to the employee’s conviction before his services could be terminated by resorting to the said provision which provides for an exceptional mode of termination without holding any inquiry. He urged that a mere mechanical reference to the fact of conviction would not satisfy the requirements of the Section. As per him, upon a bare perusal of the judgment whereby, the petitioner was convicted, it is apparent that the petitioner’s conviction was not such which required the harshest penalty of dismissal from service. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 and this Court’s judgment in the case of Likhma Ram. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLW 2011(4) Raj. 2812 in support of his arguments and urged that the impugned order is grossly illegal and perverse and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order as well as the provisions of the Rules and the judgment cited at the Bar.

6. Rule 19(1) of the CCA Rules, resorting whereto, the impugned order was passed, reads as below:

“19. Special procedure in certain cases.– Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 16, 17 and 18,

(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to him conviction on a criminal charge; or

(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or

(iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow such procedure, the disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit.

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary.”

7. As per the plain language of Rule 19, in case where a Government servant is convicted of an offence and the disciplinary authority is of the view that the conduct of the Government employee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document