IMPORTANT POINT
A disciplinary authority must assess an employee's conduct in light of a criminal conviction before imposing dismissal, considering moral turpitude and overall service record.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This is the fourth round of litigation by the petitioner questioning the decision of the disciplinary authority in dispensing with/terminating the services of the petitioner only on the ground that he has been convicted and sentenced in a criminal case under the judgment and order dated 25.3.2004 in Session Trial No. 396 of 1999 which he appealed against before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2004. The conviction of the petitioner has been under Sections 307/504/506 Indian Penal Code and Section 35 of the Arms Act. In the pending criminal appeal petitioner had already been enlarged on bail as the execution of the sentence has been stayed by the order of the Court and later on conviction and sentence has been set aside as the Criminal Appeal stood allowed.

3. It is to equally worth to mention here that on account of petitioner being sent to jail as a result of conviction in the session trial case, petitioner could be released on bail only in Criminal appeal and so he could not report for duty and resultantly he faced dismissal from service on account of absence from duty.

4. The challenge to the said order of dismissal has been successful as the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 5.5.2015 holding that the dismissal from service was too harsh looking to the charges of absence from duty and the fact that petitioner had been absent for absolutely those reasons and circumstances which were beyond his control. The Court passed an order remitting the matter to look into the grievance of the petitioner afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

5. While authority proceeded to examine the matter on remand this time, dismissed him from service exercising power under Rule 8(2)A of the U.P. Subordinate Rank Officers Police Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 for the reason that petitioner had been held guilty in the criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 257/1995 (S.T. No. 224/1998) under Sections 307/504/506 IPC and has been sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and further fine of Rs. 3000/-. This order passed on 13.6.2015 came to be challenged again in writ petition being Writ-A No. 38896 of 2015 and the Court relying upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel; AIR 1985 SC 1416, judgment of this Court in the case of Sadanand Mishra v. State of U.P.; 1993 LCD 70, Ratan Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2013(11) ADJ 352 and Biresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(9) ADJ 768 (DB), held that dismissal of an employee ipso facto on account of conviction was not a permissible action because the disciplinary authority was required to not only give an opportunity of hearing but to examine that the act and conduct of the employee in the criminal case looking to the facts and allegations that were borne out in the discussions made by the trial judge to find whether amount to moral turpitude so as to hold him unfit for a Government employment more especially in police force. Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the order dated 13.6.2015 and directed the authorities to examine the conduct of the petitioner in the matter so as to justify whether he deserved punishment like dismissal/removal/reduction in rank within the meaning of provision (a) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. This order was further challenged unsuccessfully before the Special Appellate Bench which dismissed the intra-Court appeal on 20.11.2018 being Special Appeal No. 635 of 2016 vide order dated 20.11.2018.

7. Petitioner this time represented the matter again before the 42nd Battalion, PAC, Naini, Prayagraj and the Commandant passed the order on 16.12.2019 holding representation of the petitioner to be meritless and devoid of any force as the e