Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Manoj Kumar Katiyar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 11761 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Article 311 - Dismissal from Service - 311(1)………….(2) - [Article 311(2)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, was dismissed from service based on a criminal conviction without consideration of the conduct leading to the conviction, in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order did not consider the conduct leading to the petitioner's conviction, which is a requirement under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The court quashed the dismissal order and remanded the matter for a fresh order in compliance with Article 311(2).
Issues: Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on a criminal conviction without considering the conduct leading to the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, a government servant cannot be dismissed from service based on a criminal conviction without considering the conduct leading to the conviction. The dismissal order must comply with the provisions of Article 311(2) and provide the government servant with an opportunity for a fair inquiry.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the dismissal order, and remanded the matter to the District Basic Education Officer to pass a fresh order in compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India within two months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 & 3.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has been convicted in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009 (State Vs. Manoj Katiyar & Anr.) arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2009. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 18.04.2023 whereby representation of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been rejected.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Saray, Block Amraudha, District Kanpur Dehat on 22.11.1999. Thereafter petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher in Uchcha Prathmik Vidyalay, Rasoolpur, Block Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat on 22.01.2007.
4. Petitioner while in service was implicated in Case Crime No. 314 of 2009 which was registered under Section 498-A, 302/34 I.P.C. Petitioner was subjected to trial in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009 (State Vs. Manoj Katiyar & Anr.) and vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 he has been convicted and vide order dated 23.01.2013 he has been sentenced for life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section 498-A I.P.C.
5. District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat has passed an order on 26.12.2014 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has been convicted vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2013 passed in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009.
6. Petitioner after the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 passed in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009 was sent to judicial custody. Petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 10265 of 2022 (Manoj Katiyar Vs. State of U.P.).
7. Petitioner after being released on bail submitted a representation on 27.01.2023 to the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat whereby he requested that since he has been released on bail, therefore, he may be reinstated in service. The District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat in response to the representation of the petitioner informed the petitioner vide his letter dated 18.04.2023 that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service vide order dated 26.12.2014 and copy of the order dated 26.12.2014 was again provided to the petitioner through the aforesaid letter.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is a member of the Civil Service of the Union or 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 or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges framed against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges provided, no inquiry is required 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.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that in view of the provisions made in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India petitioner would have been dismissed from service only on the basis of conduct which led to his conviction in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009 i.e. disciplinary authority was under obligation to consider the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction and only thereafter he could have passed the order for dismissal of the petitioner from service.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 26.1
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant cannot be dismissed from service based on a criminal conviction without considering the conduct leading to the convict....
Dismissal based solely on conviction is invalid without consideration of conduct; procedural safeguards must be observed, including issuing a show-cause notice.
Dismissal of a government employee under Article 311(2)(a) does not require a departmental inquiry if based on conviction for a criminal charge, provided the authority acts within its powers.
Unless there exists an enabling provision either in the applicable service rules or any other provision of law it would not be open for the disciplinary authority to pass an order in respect of contr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the conduct of an employee leading to a conviction must be considered before passing a d....
The main legal point established is that a government employee cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of conviction, and the conduct leading to the conviction must be considered before imposing any....
(1) Dismissal from service without conducting departmental inquiry – It is duty of disciplinary authority to record satisfaction how and in what manner holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicabl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
