JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 27.9.2019 whereby writ petition preferred by non-appellant/petitioner was allowed. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order of punishment of dismissal from service.

2. The brief facts of the case show that while the non-appellant/petitioner was working on the post of Collection Amin in Tehsil Nawabganj, Gonda, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for the offence under Sections 376, 511 Indian Penal Code. The order of dismissal from service was passed considering the conduct of the petitioner led to his conviction. It was by invoking Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the Government Order dated 6.9.2000.

3. The order of dismissal from service was challenged by the non-appellant/petitioner by maintaining a writ petition. The order of dismissal from service has been set aside by learned Single Judge finding that no disciplinary proceeding was taken before passing the order of punishment. It was by relying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 73.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that impugned judgment has been passed in ignorance of Article 311 of the Constitution of India so as the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. In case of conviction of an employee, disciplinary proceedings are not required, rather considering the conduct of the employee led to conviction, the appropriate punishment can be imposed. In the instant case, the employee was convicted for the offence under Sections 376, 511, 506 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years imprisonment with fine. The conduct of the petitioner led to conviction was the basis of the punishment of dismissal from service. He was convicted for attempt to rape and looking to the aforesaid conduct, the order was passed dismissing him from service.

5. Article 311 of the Constitution of India and even Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India exempts disciplinary proceedings in case of conduct of an employee led to conviction. Learned Single Judge has not referred to the provisions of Constitution of India so as Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 rather erroneously relied on the judgment in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu (supra). The aforesaid judgment does not propound a ratio on the issue rather it was a judgment on a criminal appeal against the order of conviction and not to challenge the order of punishment.

6. It is also stated that even the judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another, AIR 1964 SC 787, is not an authority on the issue. There also, the order of punishment was not challenged rather it was an order of suspension. Learned Single Judge casually relied the judgment supra to quash the order of dismissal, thus prayer is to set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge.

7. Learned counsel for the non-appellant has vehemently contested the appeal and submits that the judgment under challenge is covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and K. Venkateshwarlu (supra). It is a case of conviction, the authority needs to initiate the disciplinary proceeding, as envisaged under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Learned counsel for the appellants has even made a reference of judgment of this Court in the case of Sada Nand Mishra v. State of UP. and another, 2000 (18) LCD 88. Therein relying on the judgment of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, the order of punishment was interfered. The prayer is accordingly to maintain the judgment of learned Single Judge.

8. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the non-appellant was convicted for the