R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as an accountant in the Office of the Conservator of forests, Bhopal Division. He was caught in a bribery trap laid by the Lokayukta Police. A challan (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted before the Special Court, Bhopal on april 9, 2002 charging him with offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, he was, convicted and sentenced by judgment dated December 12, 2003 in special Case No. 4 of 2002 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- on each score in default of which to undergo a further imprisonment of one month for each default. The petitioner states that he has challenged the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 2156 of 2003 wherein this Court by Order dated December 26, 2003, has suspended the execution of sentence of imprisonment.

( 2 ) WHEN the charge-sheet was filed in the special Court, the petitioner was placed under suspension on April 24, 2002. When he was convicted, on the basis of such conviction on a criminal charge, the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any enquiry, by order dated April 16, 2004 in exercise of power under Rule 19 (i) of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 ('state CCA Rules', for short ). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition on April 26, 2004 and has sought quashing of the order of dismissal dated April 16, 2004. He has also sought a direction to the respondents to take him back in service, revoke the suspension and permit him to discharge his duties.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that no order under Rule 19 (i) of the State CCA Rules can be passed without a summary enquiry giving a hearing to the delinquent employee or at least an opportunity to make a representation in regard to the penalty proposed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar AIR 2001 sc 1092 : 2001 (3) SCC 414 and the Division bench decisions of this Court in Tikaram windwar v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies 1978 MPLJ 57 and State of M. P. v. Dr. Sheetal kumar Bandi 2003 (96) FLR 372 (M. P. ).

( 4 ) IN Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra), dealing with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('central CCA Rules', for short), the supreme Court observed thus:". . . . . . . . . . The Division Bench did not take into consideration Rule 19 of the Central rules which contemplates that if any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary Authority can make such order as it deems fit (dismissal from service is one such order contemplated under Rule 19) on initiating disciplinary proceedings and after giving the delinquent officer an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. As a matter of fact, this type of disciplinary procedure is contemplated in the Constitution itself as could be seen in article 311 (2) (a ). Rule 19 of the Central rules is in conformity with the above provision of the Constitution. This, as we see, is a summary procedure provided to take disciplinary action against a Government servant who is already convicted in a criminal proceeding. . . . All that a disciplinary authority is expected to do under Rule 19 is to be satisfied that the officer concerned has been convicted of a criminal charge and has been given a show cause notice and reply to such show cause notice, if any, should be properly considered before making any order under this Rule. Of course, it will have to bear in mind the gravity of the conviction suffered by the Government servant in the criminal proceedings before passing any order under Rule 19 to maintain the proportionality of punishment. "

( 5 ) THE decision in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra) was followed by a Divisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document