SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 331

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.H. Zaidi, J.
Virendra Singh Rana - Appellants
Versus
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd - Respondents
Decided on : Mar 21, 1996

Advocates appeared:
Rajendra Dobhal, Yatindra Singh,

The stay of conviction and sentence by the High Court does not render the dismissal order inoperative.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL CONVICTION - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - REINSTATEMENT - STAY OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - EFFECT - ARTICLE 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONDUCT RULES - INTERPRETATION:

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a junior engineer in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, was dismissed from service after being convicted under Section 385 IPC. He challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the stay of conviction and sentence by the High Court entitled him to reinstatement.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the stay of conviction and sentence did not render the dismissal order inoperative. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera, which held that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of a Government servant convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or the Government servant is released on bail pending appeal.

Issues: Whether the stay of conviction and sentence by the High Court entitled the petitioner to reinstatement in service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the stay of conviction and sentence did not render the dismissal order inoperative. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera, which held that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of a Government servant convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or the Government servant is released on bail pending appeal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out. However, the court observed that it was a fit case for the petitioner to apply for expediting the hearing of the criminal appeal.

Judgment :

1. PETITIONER who was employed as a junior engineer in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed the instant petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 21/26.12.1995 and 7.3.1996 passed by the Deputy General Manager (UR) the Disciplinary Authority of the Corporation whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and his request for reinstatement in the service was rejected.

2. THE brief facts of the case as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner, who was the holder of diploma in civil engineering, was appointed as junior engineer in the Corporation on 26.6.1994. While in service he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 385 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in session Trial No. 41 of 1991 by his judgment and order dated 7.12.1995. On the basis of the conviction dated 7.12.1995 respondent no. 3, after following the procedure prescribed under Rules, in exercise of power under Rule 27 of the Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 21/25.1.1995.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 7.12.1995 petitioner preferred criminal appeal before High Court which was registered as criminal appeal No. 2007 of 1995. Appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted and he was also directed to be released on bail on 10.1.1996. The order passed by this Court is quoted below :

"Shri A.D. Giri appears for the appellant, Virendra Singh. The operation of the impugned order dated 7.12.1995 is quashed. The appellant, Virendra singh was on bail during the trial. Admit him to bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. Tehri Garhwal in S. T. No. 41 of 1991 under Section 395 of 1991. The realisation of the fine is stayed. "

3. ON the strength of the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by this Court the petitioner made an application before respondent no. 3 for his reinstatement in service and permission to join the post. Request made by the petitioner was however, not acceded to and was rejected by the Senior Personnel Officer vide order dated 7.3.1996. Petitioner, as stated above, has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.12.1995 and 7.3.1996.

4. IN have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the operation of the order dated 20.12.1995 was stayed by the High Court, beside releasing the applicant on bail, therefore, pending disposal of the appeal he was entitled to be reinstated, view taken to the contrary, by the authorities below is illegal. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission on the decision in the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera (JT 1995 3 SC 32), in which Supreme Court after noticing its recent decision in Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang (JT 1995 1 SC 515), was pleased to rule as under :

"we need not concern ourselves any more with the power of the appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is the conduct which has led to the conviction on a criminal charge, and there can be no question of suspending the conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said Government accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. "

5. IN the present case on the date the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner the interim order, referred to above, was not in operation, therefore, there was no legal bar on passi



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top