Conviction for a serious crime justifies removal from service, and the proviso to Rule 14(iii) excludes the opportunity of hearing before imposing a punishment in such cases.

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 12.03.3015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 94 of 2012. The learned Tribunal by means of order impugned has upheld the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner i.e. removal from service. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment on the ground that it was in violation of Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 which is extracted below:

"Rule-[14] Special procedure in certain cases:

Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 13

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or

(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules;

the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit;

Provided that the railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause (i).

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule."

2. In light of the aforesaid Rule he has submitted that he would have been given an opportunity of hearing before any penalty was imposed upon him. Thus he has claimed the violation of Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

3. He has further pointed out that the order impugned has been passed also in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the proviso (a) of Article 311 (2) requires examination of the conduct leading to conviction by the disciplinary authority but no such examination was done by him. Article 311 of the Constitution of India is extracted below

"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 give 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

(c) where the President of the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Sate 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 o