Dismissal based solely on conviction is invalid without consideration of conduct; procedural safeguards must be observed, including issuing a show-cause notice.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner was dismissed from service under order dated 28.2.2024 passed by respondent no.5 on account of his conviction in a criminal trial under judgment and order passed by the trial court on 25.10.2023 in criminal case no. 22 of 2011 ( State v. Santosh Kumar Singh ), arising out of case crime no. 178 of 2010 under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) P.C. Act, P.S. Sector 49 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, by which sentene awarded to the petitioner was five years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

3. Petitioner was working as a 'Sub Inspector' in the Police Department prior to passing of the impugned order dated 28.2.2024 imposing major penalty dismissing him from service exercising powers under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991). Dismissal order is already assailed by the petitioner in this petition.

4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that while terminating the petitioner from service and holding that in view of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, it was not necessary to hold full-fledged departmental inquiry. In view of the conviction of petitioner in a criminal case, it was necessary for the respondent-Authority to have issued a show- cause notice inviting at least an explanation from the petitioner and then to pass the order rendering due application of mind as to the conduct of the petitioner in relation to the criminal case amounting to moral turpitude, considering the future prospects.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 and various other judgments of the Supreme Court that have been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 14570 of 2009) decided on 7.1.2020 and another recent judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Manoj Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No. 11761 of 2023) decided on 16.8.2023.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that since the petitioner's services have been dispensed with on account of conviction in a criminal case, the only possible result was termination from service, thus according to him, there was no other possible alternative for the respondent except to dismiss him from service in view of Rules, 1991. However, on the question of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Authority could have applied its independent mind as to the conduct being bad for moral turpitude. It is argued that the matter may be remitted to the Authority competent, to decide afresh, in accordance with law.

7. Having heard counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records and judgments cited above, this Court proceeds to examine the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service for the legal point of view as has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. At the first instance, this Court proceeds to examine Rule 8(2) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 that reads as under:

"8. Dismissal and removal- (1) no police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing author