Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(All) 82

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAJES KUMAR AND MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.
Dr. SURENDRA NATH VERMA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 54026 and 27895 of 2010, decided on 10th January, 2014)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311—U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999—Rules 4(4) and 8(4)—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498-A and 306—Government servant—Conviction on criminal charges—Revocation of suspension—Reinstatement in service—Service benefits—Scope—Petitioner a Homoeopathic doctor—His wife committed suicide—Trial Court convicted him under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C.—Appellate Court stayed the conviction—And in compliance with that order petitioner was reinstated in service—Pay fixation in accordance with 6th Pay Commission sought—Admittedly, while passing the suspension order dated 2.8.2010, a fresh inquiry proceeding has not been contemplated—Effect of stay of conviction—Suspension of sentence does not amount to the stay of conviction—Departmental disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner—Petitioner convicted in a criminal proceeding and has been sentenced—Staying of sentence does not amount to stay of conviction—After conviction petitioner shall be deemed to be placed under suspension unless the suspension is revoked under Rule 4 (8)—Thus, impugned suspension order not without jurisdiction and revoked merely on the ground that the conviction has been stayed—Disciplinary authority directed to conclude disciplinary proceeding expeditiously—Further directions also issued. [Paras 24 to 39]
Result; Petition Disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that stay of conviction does not automatically revoke suspension; Rule 4(4) and 4(8) govern deemed suspension and revocation. (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that a fresh inquiry is not necessarily required if an inquiry was already contemplated or initiated before suspension, and emphasizes expeditious conduct of disciplinary proceedings. (!) (!) (!) - It confirms that criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously, with the standard of proof in departmental proceedings being different from criminal trials. (!) (!) (!) - The Court directs the disciplinary authority to conclude proceedings expeditiously and to consider salary fixation and related rights. (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of stay of conviction on suspension and disciplinary proceedings under UP Rules 1999?

What are the conditions under which a government servant can be deemed to be under suspension after conviction and how should the disciplinary authority act thereafter?

What is the proper approach to concluding departmental inquiries when concurrent criminal proceedings exist or when prior inquiries have been initiated but not culminated?

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shyamal Narain, Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State as Special Counsel and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as Medical Officer (Homoeopathic). It is alleged that the wife of the petitioner has committed suicide on 25.5.2002. A First Information Report was lodged against him on 27.5.2002 under Sections 302, 498-A and 328 IPC, P.S. Attarsuiya, District-Allahabad. By the judgment dated 21.4.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 20, convicted the petitioner and awarded punishment under Section 498-A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/- and under Section 306 IPC for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2605 of 2009 in which by an order dated 7.5.2009, the petitioner was granted bail and the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 was stayed by this Court. It appears that in pursuance of the criminal proceeding, the petitioner has been suspended. However, when the petitioner was released in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner applied for his reinstatement. The Secretary Medical, Health, Government of U.P. reinstated him after quoting the order of the Criminal Appeal No. 2605 of 2009. Purportedly, in compliance of the interim order of the High Court dated 7.5.2009. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 27895 of 2010 seeking relief for direction to decide his representation dated 29.12.2009 for fixing his pay in the pay scale in accordance with the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and also pay him basic pay including pay band coupled with dearness allowance in consonance with recommendation of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. November, 2009.

3. While entertaining the writ petition on 17.5.2010, the Division Bench of this Court has made the following observation :

“We are unable to appreciate as to how the petitioner was reinstated after his conviction. The law in this regard is fairly well-settled. In B.R. Kapoor v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC 231; State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan, (2003) 12 SCC 432 and Navjyot Singh Siddhu v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 1003, the Supreme Court held that unless the attention of the Court hearing the Criminal Appeal is directed and that reasons are recorded for staying conviction, a Government servant convicted on the criminal charges is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

In the present case, we do not find that the attention of the High Court in Criminal Appeal was drawn or any argument was placed to stay the operation of the judgment for the purposes of reinstatement of the petitioner in service. There is no mention in the appellate order that the petitioner is a Government servant and is under suspension. The High Court has not stayed the conviction of the petitioner. The stay of the effect and operation of the judgment cannot be treated as stay of conviction.

The Medical and Health Department appears to have passed the order without seeking advise of the Law Department. We, therefore, direct the State to explain the circumstances in which the petitioner was reinstated in service.”

4. It appears that at the instance of the petitioner the interim order dated 7.5.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2605 of 2009 has been modified and in which last paragraph of the order dated 7.5.2009 is modified as follows:

“The effect and operation of the sentence of the applicant by impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 20, Allahabad in ST No. 350 of 2004 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal”.

5. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 2.8.2010 Annexure 12 to the writ p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(All) 82

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTBEFORE : RAJES KUMAR AND MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.Dr. SURENDRA NATH VERMA ....PetitionerVersusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 54026 and 27895 of 2010, decided on 10th January, 2014)

What is the effect of stay of conviction on suspension and disciplinary proceedings under UP Rules 1999?

What are the conditions under which a government servant can be deemed to be under suspension after conviction and how should the disciplinary authority act thereafter?

What is the proper approach to concluding departmental inquiries when concurrent criminal proceedings exist or when prior inquiries have been initiated but not culminated?

Cases Referred (4)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAJES KUMAR AND MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.
Dr. SURENDRA NATH VERMA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 54026 and 27895 of 2010, decided on 10th January, 2014)