Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3943
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Jitendra Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 10669 of 2025
Decided On : 30-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Criminal conviction does not support automatic termination of civil servants. Dismissal requires the disciplinary authority to independently evaluate the specific conduct that necessitated the conviction to ensure the penalty of removal is justified, proportional, and grounded in an assessment of the employee's continued suitability for service.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Proviso (a) - Dismissal from civil service - Criminal conviction - Requirement of evaluation - Conviction in a criminal court does not automatically entail dismissal or removal from service - Disciplinary authority must independently evaluate the conduct of the employee that led to the conviction - Determination of penalty must be based on the gravity of the conduct to ensure such action is fair, just, and reasonable - Failure to record reasons for the penalty based on the specific conduct renders the dismissal order arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 4, 7, 14, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from government service following a conviction in a criminal case. The termination order was issued based solely on the fact of conviction without the competent authority performing an independent examination of the underlying conduct that resulted in the conviction or justifying the necessity of the ultimate penalty imposed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary order was passed in a mechanical fashion. It was held that while a full departmental inquiry is not mandated where a conviction occurs, the authority is legally obligated to consider the conduct of the employee and the specific details of the criminal case to arrive at a proportional penalty.
Issues: Whether the summary termination of a government employee upon criminal conviction, without an independent evaluation of the convicting conduct by the disciplinary authority, is legally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal conviction provides grounds for modifying the inquiry process, but it does not remove the administrative obligation to evaluate whether the convicting conduct justifies dismissal or removal. The disciplinary authority must exercise its power to determine the penalty by reviewing the facts of the conviction to ensure the decision is not arbitrary or disproportionate.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order of termination quashed and matter remanded to the competent authority for a fresh, reasoned decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks judicial review of dismissal based on criminal conviction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner contends that dismissal without inquiry into moral turpitude is unlawful. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. disciplinary authorities must independently consider conduct leading to conviction before dismissal. (Para 4) |
| 4. impugned dismissal order quashed; matter remanded for compliance with article 311(2). (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 07.07.2025 by which his services have come to be dismissed only for the reason that he has been convicted in a criminal case.
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents were liable to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner before terminating his services as they were have to take a decision as to the question whether the act and conduct of the petitioner in a criminal case amounted to moral turpitude so as not to continue him in employment. It is argued that upon a mere conviction in a criminal case, could not have resulted in ipso facto termination of employment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, Writ - A No. 11761 of 2023 decided on 16.08.2023, wherein, vide paras 15 to 22 the Court has held thus:
"15. I have considered submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that a government servant cannot be dismissed removed or reduced in rank without conducting an inquiry in which the said government servant is associated and afforded opportunity of hearing but where a government servant is dismissed from service on the ground of his conduct which led to his conviction in relation to a crime, then there is no necessity of holding inquiry. The Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is extracted as Under :-
311 (1)………….
(2) "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply
(a) 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; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry."
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 has considered the provisions of Article 311 (2) and has held that where a government servant is dismissed from service on the basis of conduct which led to his conviction then disciplinary authority is under obligation to consider the conduct of the government servant which led to his conviction and thereafter finding must be recorded that the conduct of the government servant is such that he cannot be retained in service. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (Supra) is extracted as under :-
Before, however, any clause of the second proviso can come into play the condition laid down in it must be satisfied. The condit
