The dismissal order based solely on a criminal conviction becomes non-est after the conviction is set aside. The court emphasized the need to balance fair trial and expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 1318 of 2020:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 152 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 152 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

L.P.A. No. 94 of 2020:

6. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4025 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 03.08.2004 by which the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service on charge of conviction in a criminal case, has been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition.

7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner while working as Adheshpal (Peon) in the Department of Industries at Dhanbad was subjected to a criminal case registered under Section 420 of IPC and under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The aforesaid criminal proceeding culminated into the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2002.

The disciplinary authority although had initiated a departmental proceeding by serving the memorandum of charge but the said departmental proceeding was kept at hold awaiting for the outcome of the criminal case. The disciplinary authority, after the judgment of conviction having been passed, has passed the order of dismissal on 03.08.2004.

The writ petitioner-respondent challenged the judgment of conviction which finally resulted into his acquittal. The writ petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated 03.08.2004 on the ground that since the dismissal order is based upon the conviction and the very basis of the order of dismissal, i.e., conviction in the criminal case, has already been quashed and set aside by its reversal with the order of acquittal, therefore, the order of dismissal is required to be recalled.

The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 07.08.2019, has quashed the order of dismissal dated 03.08.2004 and remitted the matter to the respondent no.3, appellant no.3 herein, so as to pass afresh order in accordance with law on the basis of the observation made in the order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. The same is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

8. Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, learned AC to AAG-I appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that it is not a case where the departmental proceeding has not been initiated rather the departmental proceeded had been initiated by issuance of memorandum of charge against the writ petitioner but on the request made by the writ petitioner for staying the departmental proceeding during the pendency of the criminal case, the departmental proceeding was kept at hold.

It has been submitted that when the departmental proceeding was kept at hold, the criminal case has been resulted into the judgment of conviction. The disciplinary authority after knowing about the fact of the judgment of conviction, has passed the order of dismissal on 03.08.2004. Therefore, submission has been made that when the departmental proceeding has been kept at hold on the request made by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the acquittal in the criminal case for the purpose of recall of the order of his dismissal.

According to the learned State counsel, the aforesaid aspect of the matter had not been considered, hence, the instant appeal.

9. This Court has heard the learned coun