Disciplinary action based on criminal conviction requires adherence to principles of natural justice, mandating a reasonable opportunity for the employee to contest the penalty imposed.

ORDER :

The petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 10.7.2000 (Annexure P-7) by which the employer invoking Section 19 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (for brevity, ‘CCS Rules’) dismissed the petitioner from service for being involved in grave misconduct arising from judgment dated 7.6.2000 vide Crime No.58/1999 by which petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in ST No. 60/1995 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal.

3 The sole contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded prior to passing of impugned order of dismissal from service. It is submitted that against the aforesaid judgment of conviction of learned Trial Judge under Section 307 of IPC , the petitioner unsuccessfully approached the High Court in Cr.A. No.1509/2000 which suffered dismissal. However, on approaching the Apex Court in Cr.A.No.2126/2011, the same was disposed of on 16.11.2011 though upholding the conviction under but reducing the sentence to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. The Apex Court was persuaded to do so due to long lapse of time since the incident (1994) and the parties having decided to amicably settle the dispute.

3.1 While assailing the order of dismissal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the given facts and circumstances, when the incident had taken place due to past rivalry and there was no element of mens rea, the employer before passing the order of dismissal ought to have conducted enquiry into the question of quantum of penalty.

3.2 To support the said contention, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana And Another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 and the judgment of the Single Bench rendered in the case of Kamal Kumar Vaidya Vs. M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., and others in W.P.No.13947/2019 are pressed into service.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 on the other hand prays for dismissal of this petition on the ground that provisions of Rule 19 of CCS Rules do not contemplate affording of opportunity of being heard before passing the order of penalty. It is thus submitted that the ground of non affording of opportunity is of no avail to the petitioner.

5. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be decided in the following terms on the short point of non affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5.1. For ready reference and convenience, Rule 19 of the CCS Rules is reproduced below:

19. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES:

Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or

(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be im