The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Article 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India, an employee can be dismissed on the ground of conduct leading to conviction on a criminal charge, and the stay on the execution of the sentence does not affect the conviction.

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.:-

The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quash­ing the order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the Additional Director (Education) Uttaranchal, Dehradun and also the order dated 30.7.2003 which has been passed by the Principal, Rajkiya Inter College, Audali, Udham Singh Nager. In addition to it, the petitioner has also prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding the re­spondents to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Lecturer (Hindi Department) during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who, at the relevant time was a Lecturer in Hindi, was implicated in a criminal case in the Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 302/34/2011.P.C. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed and criminal trial proceeded against the peti­tioner in which the petitioner with other co-accused was convicted of murder and sentenced for life imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner, how­ever, contends that against the order of conviction and sentence he filed a Crimi­nal Appeal No. 1019 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, as the crime was committed on the border district of Uttar Pradesh at Thakurdwara which falls in district Moradabad, which is in Uttar Pradesh. This appeal has been ad­mitted and the petitioner has been enlarged on bail on 5.3.2003. However, vide order dated 30.7.2003 the services of the peti­tioner have been terminated in further compliance of the order of the Additional Di­rector (Education), Uttaranchal, Dehradun dated 24.7.2003 under provisions of Arti­cle 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution of In­dia. Since Article 311 has an important bearing in this case, the same is being re­produced as under for ready reference :-

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. - (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-In­dia service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or re­moved by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

[Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evi­dence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making rep­resentation on the penalty proposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply -]

(a) where a person is dismissed or re­moved or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to re­duce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reason­ably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

© where the President or the Gover­nor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision -thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.]"

3. The petitioner while challenging the orders impugned in the present writ peti­tion has contended that the principle of natural justice and fair play required that an opportunity of hearing was to be given to the petitioner before terminating his serv­ices. He has challenged the aforesaid or­ders on other grounds as well.

4. Counter affidavi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document