IMPORTANT POINT
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 punishment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned dismissal order dated 13.10.2010, for quashing of the appellate order dated 28.02.2020 and for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 19.03.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Untrained Lekhpal in the year 1980 and after passing the Lekhpal School Examination, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lekhpal regularly in the year 1984.

3. During the service period, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 302 and 506 (2) IPC. After the conviction, the impugned dismissal order has been passed under Article 311(2) (a) of the Constitution of India merely on the basis that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case.

4. It is submitted that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority without applying its mind whereas as per the law settled by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court that the disciplinary authority has to consider whether the conduct of the concerned government servant is such as justifies the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in grade which is not considered while dismissing the services of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Union of India and another vs. Tulsiram Patel : AIR 1985 SCC 1416, State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383 as well as the judgments of this Court in the cases of Shyam Narian Shukla vs. State of U.P., 1988 6 LCD 530, Ratan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, [(2013) 11 ADJ 352], Udai Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., [(2014) 32 LCD 779], Shambhu Nath Yadav vs. Stae of U.P., [2016 (4) ADJ 276], Rajesh Dwivedi vs. State of U.P., 2018 (36) LCD 1047, Ram Kishna vs. State of U.P., (2020) 1 ADJ 862, Murari Lal Rathore vs. State of U.P. : 2021 (6) ALJ 622.

5. It is further submitted that during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service on 31.10.2021 and due to the dismissal order, the petitioner has not been paid any post retiral dues.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the post retiral dues and in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1804 of 2020 : Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah and lastly relied upon the judgment dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.4422 of 2015 in the case of Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue and others wherein a judgment has been passed after considering all the aspects as argued and submitted before this Court and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Vishwanath Vishwakarma (supra).

7. It is further submitted that appellate and revisional orders confirming the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without application of mind and against the law.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the parity of the judgment dated 18.09.2023 in the case of Vishwanath Vishwakarma (supra) prayed by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case to the extent that petitioner in that writ petition was 70 years of age whereas in the present case, the petitioner is only about 63 years of age but unable to distinguish the applicability of the judgment otherwise.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and the judgments cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble A