Back
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.-Heard Shri Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sanding Counsel for the respondents.
2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is true that he was convicted by the Court of the Special Judge C.B.I., Court No. 1/Additional District Judge, Lucknow vide order & Judgment dated 4.4.2016 in Criminal Case No. 1800439 of 2001, (State of U.P. through CBI v. Gyan Giri and others), arising out of (i) R.C. 1(S)/1993'. (ii) R.C. 2 (S)/1993 and (iii) R.C. 3(S)/1993, under Section 120(b)/302/364/365/218/217 I.P.C. Police Station CBI,/SIC, New Delhi. Sentence awarded to the petitioner was Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,75,000/- thereafter against the conviction order, the petitioner preferred an criminal appeal in which the Hon'ble High Court, reduced the sentence 07 years in place of life imprisonment and thereafter the petitioner was released from jail on 4.1.2023, but the disciplinary authority has passed the order dated 7.2.2023 in purported exercise of powers under U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ''1991 Rule
Dismissal of a government servant post-conviction requires consideration of conduct leading to conviction, not merely the conviction itself.
Service Law - Punishment of dismissal from service - Appeal against - Once disciplinary authority reaches conclusion that government servant’s conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal ....
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....
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....
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.
The disciplinary authority must evaluate circumstances before imposing penalties on government servants convicted in criminal cases, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and proportion....
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....
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
