Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Ram Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 3476 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2024
Disciplinary Action - Termination of Service - Article 311(2) - The court interpreted the exceptions under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, concluding that a departmental inquiry is not mandatory when an employee is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Hindi Teacher, was terminated due to a conviction for forgery. He contested the termination, claiming it was illegal. The trial court dismissed his suit, but the First Appellate Court set aside the termination, allowing for a fresh inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court erred in requiring a departmental inquiry, as the appellant's conviction for moral turpitude justified termination without one. The court emphasized the need to consider the conduct leading to the conviction.
Issues: Whether a departmental inquiry is mandatory before disciplinary action against an employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the second proviso to Article 311(2), an employer can dismiss an employee based on conduct leading to a criminal conviction without a departmental inquiry.
Result: The appeal by the State is partly allowed, and the First Appellate Court's order for a departmental inquiry is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CM-4637-C-2024 in RSA-1181-2024
1. Connected appeal filed by the respondent against the common judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is pending in this Court. Hence, the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. CM stands allowed.
Main cases
3. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected Regular Second Appeals arising from a common judgment passed by the First Appellate Court shall stand disposed of.
4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
5. In RSA no.3476-2023, appellant was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 12.08.1975. His services were terminated by the order dated 15.12.2003 on the ground that he has been convicted in FIR no.83 dated 18.11.1994 under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine. He filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 01.09.2016. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit for the grant of decree of declaration claiming that the aforesaid orders are illegal, null and void. The State of Punjab contested the suit on the ground that the services of the plaintiff have been terminated on account of his conviction in the criminal case involving moral turpitude. The trial court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court held that no reasons were given by the competent authority and the mis-conduct committed by the appellant was not considered and there was no application of mind by the punishing authority. Even the conduct of the appellant was not considered. While setting aside the order of termination, the court observed that the respondents (State of Punjab) shall be at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry.
6. In the beginning, the appellant-Ram Pal filed an appeal in which the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab submitted that the departmental inquiry shall be completed within a period of 6 months. Hence, the appeal was disposed of. Subsequently, State of Punjab filed an application for recall of the order on the ground that the State counsel inadvertently made the statement without instructions from the Department and departmental inquiry was neither pending or proposed.
7. During the pendency of the application, the State of Punjab has also filed an appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
9. The following question requires decision:-
10. Second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India lays down three exceptions to the normal rule that the employee shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry. The service rules have been notified on the similar lines.
11. In this case, the employee Ram Pal was convicted on the allegations that he has forged the order of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab. The relevant findings of the Court while convicting the plaintiff reads as under:-
An employer is not required to conduct a departmental inquiry before terminating an employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant cannot be dismissed from service based on a criminal conviction without considering the conduct leading to the convict....
Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insuf....
Unless there exists an enabling provision either in the applicable service rules or any other provision of law it would not be open for the disciplinary authority to pass an order in respect of contr....
Disciplinary proceedings can proceed independently of pending criminal cases without equating their standards of proof; acquittal in criminal cases does not invalidate departmental findings.
Dismissal of a government employee under Article 311(2)(a) does not require a departmental inquiry if based on conviction for a criminal charge, provided the authority acts within its powers.
Dismissal based solely on conviction is invalid without consideration of conduct; procedural safeguards must be observed, including issuing a show-cause notice.
Dismissal from service can be imposed under Section 11(1) of the Act 1949 for proven misconduct, regardless of criminal acquittal.
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
