IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for a serious crime justifies dismissal from service, but the disciplinary authority must consider the conduct leading to the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) whereby he has been dismissed from service on account of conviction in a criminal case.

2. The petitioner on 12.10.2001 joined respondent-Institute as a Technician (Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering). He came to be embroiled in FIR No.206 dated 24.12.2012 registered under Sections 302, 307, 452, 109, 148, 149 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur. The police after completing investigation filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 24.09.2019 held the petitioner and co-accused guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. He was awarded sentence of life imprisonment. He has preferred CRA-D-848-2019 before this Court which is still pending. He remained in custody from April’ 2015 to November’ 2021. As on day, his sentence stands suspended. The respondent vide order dated 12.02.2020 has dismissed him from service on account of conviction in a criminal case.

3. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate submits that impugned order is bad in the eye of law. The respondent has power to dismiss an employee on account of his conviction in a criminal case, however, no employee can be subjected to automatical dismissal. The disciplinary authority is duty bound to apply its mind. The said authority is supposed to look at judgment of conviction and determine conduct of the delinquent. In the present case, the respondent has passed a mechanical order. The conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction has not been scrutinized. A Constitution Bench in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985(3) SCC 398 has held that no employee can be mechanically dismissed from service on account of his conviction. This Court in Hari Ram vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and another, 2006(2) SCT 112 has set aside order of dismissal on the ground that authority failed to consider conduct of delinquent which led to his conviction.

4. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate submits that the petitioner was concededly convicted by trial Court. He was declared proclaimed offender and he surrendered in April’ 2015. The respondent took a lenient view and he despite being in judicial custody was not dismissed from service. The respondent waited for conclusion of trial. He was convicted vide judgment dated 24.09.2019. Left with no other option, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by impugned order dated 12.02.2020. The petitioner has filed appeal before this Court, however, judgment of conviction has not been stayed.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The conceded position emerging from the record is that the petitioner was embroiled in FIR registered under Section 302/307 of IPC. He surrendered in April’ 2015 and remained absconding from December’ 2012 to April’ 2015. He faced trial and remained in custody till the conclusion of trial. The trial Court found him guilty and convicted vide judgment dated 24.09.2019. He has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. He has preferred an appeal which is pending before this Court. The petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dated 12.02.2020 meaning thereby he remained in service from December’ 2012 to January’ 2020 despite his involvement in a criminal case. He came to be dismissed on the conclusion of trial.

7. As per petitioner, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law because respondent has failed to consider conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction. The impugned order has been passed in violation of mandate of proviso to Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India. His case is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel’s case (supra).

8.