Back
2005(1) JLJ 125
(FULL BENCH)
R.V. Raveendran,C.J., K.K. Lahoti and Shantanu Kemkar, JJ.
Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. and another
W.P. (S) No. 2452 of 2004; on reference by Single Judge;
Decided on 29.10.2004.
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 9.4.2002 charging him with offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
[Para 1
When the charge-sheet was filed in the Special Court, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.4.2002. 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 16.4.2004 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. [Para 2
Held : Rule 19 of the State CCA Rules is similar to Rule 14 of Railway Rules considered in Challappan (AIR 1975 SC 2216) and unamended Rule 19 of Central CCA Rules considered in Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416), which did not provide for any opportunity of hearing in regard to the penalty to be imposed. In Tulsiram Patel (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that no opportunity need be given to the employee concerned, but the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the facts and circumstances (in the manner set out in Challappan and Tulsiram Patel) may impose the penalty. It was also clarified that if the penalty imposed was whimsical or disproportionately excessive, the same was open to correction in judicial review. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (AIR 2001 SC 1092) dealt with the amended Rule.19 of the Central CCA Rules which provided for a hearing. Therefore, the principle laid down in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra) cannotbe of any assistance in interpreting Rule 19 of the State CCA Rules in the absence of an amendment in the State CCA Rules corresponding to the amendment made in the Central CCA Rules. As the State CCA Rules stand today, the law applicable is as laid down in Tulsiram Patel (supra) and not as laid down in Sunil Kumar Sarkar. AIR 2001 SC 1092 distinguished. AIR 1985 SC 1416, AIR 1975 SC 2216 and AIR 1985 SC 772 followed. 1978 JLJ 201 and 2003(1) JLJ 48 overruled. [Para 1
(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 19(i) -- on judicial review, Court can examine whether there was consideration of relevant facts and circumstances by disciplinary authority -- Court can correct the penalty if it is excessive. 2003(1) JLJ 48 confirmed. AIR 2001 SC 1092, AIR 1985 SC 1416, AIR 1975 SC 2216 and AIR 1985 SC 772 followed. [Para 12
(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 19(i) -- punishment -- imposed after conviction of Government employee by criminal Court for misconduct -- conviction based on corruption -- punishment by way of dismissal is not excessive. 2003(1) JLJ 48 confirmed. AIR 2001 SC 1092, AIR 1985 SC 1416, AIR 1975 SC 2216 and AIR 1985 SC 772 followed. [Para 12
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 19¼,d½ && dsanzh; flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e] 1965 && fu- 19] ijarqd && ;kph fj‘or[kksjh idM+k x;k && Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 7 rFkk 13¼1½ ¼?k½ ds v/khu nks"kflf) && lsok ls gVk, tkus dk vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds fy, lquokbZ dk volj ;k dkj.k crkvks lwpuk nh tkuk vko‘;d ugha && jkT; lsok fu;eksa esa lquokbZ ds fy, ,slk dksbZ Hkh mica/k ugha gS tSlk dsanzh; lsok fu;eksa esa 11-3-1987 dks tksM+s x, ijarqd }kjk micaf/kr gS && ‘kkfLr csrqdh && U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa ml ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA
;kph] ouiky] Hkksiky laHkkx ds dk;kZy; esa ys[kkdkj ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA og yksdk;qDr iqfyl }kjk fcNk, x, fj‘or ds ik‘k esa idM+k x;kA fo‘ks"k U;k;ky;] Hkksiky ds le{k 9-4-2002 dks naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 173 ds v/khu pkyku ¼vkjksi&i=½ is‘k fd;k x;k ftlesa ml ij Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 7 rFkk 13¼1½ ¼?k½ ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/kksa dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k FkkA ¿ iSjk 1À
tc fo‘ks"k U;k;ky; esa vkjksii= Qkby fd;k x;k rc 24-4-2002 dks ;kph fuyafcr dj fn;k x;kA tc mls fl)nks"k Bgjk;k x;k rc nkafMd vkjksi ds fy, ml nks"kflf) ds vk/kkj ij ;kph dks e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼la{ksi ds fy, *jkT; fu;e*½ ds fu;e 19¼,d½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr dj vkns‘k fnukad 16-4-2004 }kjk] tk¡p fd, fcuk lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA O;fFkr gks dj ;kph us ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh gSA ¿ iSjk 2À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jkT; fu;eksa dk fu;e 19 pyIiu ¿, vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2216À esa foosfpr jsy fu;eksa ds fu;e 14 rFkk rqylhjke iVsy ¿ , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1416À esa foosfpr dsaUnzh; fu;eksa ds vla‘kksf/kr fu;e 19 ds le:i gS ftuesa vf/kjksfir dh tkus okys ‘kkfLr ds ckjs esa lquokbZ ds volj dk mica/k ugha gSA rqylhjke iVsy ¼iwoksZDr½ eas mPpre U;k;ky; us lqLi"Vr% vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd lac) deZpkjh dks volj fn;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gS] vfirq] vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh ¼pyIiu vkSj rqylhjke iVsy esa crkbZ xbZ jhfr esa½ rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj dj ‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj ldrk gSA ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k Fkk fd ;fn vf/kjksfir ‘kkfLr csrqdh ;k vuuqikfrd :i ls vR;f/kd gS rc mls U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa lgh fd;k tk ldrk gSA lquhy dqekj ljdkj ¿, vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1092À esa fn, x, mPpre U;k;ky; ds i‘pkr~orhZ fofu‘p; esa dsanzh; fu;eksa ds la‘kksf/kr fu;e 19 dh foospuk dh xbZ Fkh ftlesa lquokbZ ds fy, mica/k FkkA blfy, lquhy dqekj ljdkj ¼iwoksZDr½ esa vf/kdfFkr fl)kar] jkT; fu;eksa esa dsanzh; fu;eksa ds fd, x, la‘kks/ku ds le:i la‘kks/ku ds vHkko esa jkT; fu;eksa eas fu;e 19 ds fuoZpu esa lgk;d ugha gks ldrkA jkT; fu;e vkt ftl izdkj gS] ykxw gksus okyh fof/k og gS tks rqylhjke iVsy ¼iwokZsDRk½ esa vf/kdfFkr gS] og ugha tks lquhy dqekj ljdkj ¼iwoksZDr½ es vf/kdfFkr dh xbZ gSA , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1092 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1416] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2216 rFkk , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 772 vuqlfjrA 1978 ts ,y ts 201 rFkk 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 48 myVs x,A ¿ iSjk 10À
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 19¼,d½ && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu fd, tkus ij U;k;ky; ijh{k.k dj ldrk gS fd D;k vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk lqlaxr rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k FkkA ‘kkfLr vR;kf/kd gS rc U;k;ky; mls lgh dj ldrk gSA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 48 iq"VA , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1092] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1416] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2216 rFkk , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 772 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 19¼,d½ && naM vopkj ds fy, ljdkjh deZpkjh dh nkafMd U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kflf) ds i‘pkr~ vf/kjksfir && nks"kflf) Hkz"Vkpkj ij vk/kkfjr && lsok ls gVk, tkus dk naM vR;f/kd ugha gSA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 48 iq"VA , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1092] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1416] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2216 rFkk , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 772 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12À
Raveendran, C.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 9.4.2002 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 11.12.2003 in Special Case No.4 of 2002 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- 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 26.12.2003, 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 24.4.2002. 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 16.4.2004 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 26.4.2004 and has sought quashing of the order of dismissal dated 16.4.2004. 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) and the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Tikaram Windwar v. Registrar Co-operative Societies (1978 JLJ 201 = 1978 MPLJ 57) and State of M.P. v. Dr. Sheetal Kumar Bandi [2003(1) JLJ 48 = 2003(2) MPLJ 485].
3.1. 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. "
3.2. The decision in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Sheetal Kumar Bandi. In that cas
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
