ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned orders dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) and 05.12.2024 (Annexure-P-1/A and P-1/B).

2. By impugned orders, petitioner who was working as Assistant Revenue Inspector in Municipal Council, Khirkiya District-Harda (MP) was dismissed from service after completing 28 years of service.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that no full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted. No charges were framed. No notice of enquiry was received by petitioner. No evidence was adduced and notice of imposing major penalty was not served upon him. Petitioner was tried in a criminal case under Section 498-A of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was convicted by the trial Court and he had preferred an appeal before High Court. In said appeal his sentence was suspended. All of a sudden in July, 2024 order of dismissal from service was passed without conduct of departmental enquiry. It cannot be said that petitioner has violated Rule 35(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Karmchari (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharte) Rules, 1968. It is submitted that impugned orders are contrary and in violative of law and deserves to be set aside. Prayer is made for quashing impugned orders and reinstatement of petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 to 3 submitted that petitioner was convicted for two years R.I. and six months R.I. under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A question in legislative assembly was raised why no action has been taken against petitioner. Thereafter, Urban Administration and Development Department asked for an explanation from Municipal Council, Multai and, thereafter, a resolution was passed by President-in-Council and petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner has submitted its reply to notice. After considering reply of petitioner, impugned orders were passed and service of petitioner was terminated. Proper opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner. It is submitted that action has been taken in accordance with circular issued by GAD dated 08.02.1999. As per said circular, if a government employee is convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude then order of dismissal is to be passed under Rule 10 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966. Said circular also lays down that detailed departmental enquiry is not necessary under Rules 14 and 19 and under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that order has been passed in accordance with law and there are no procedural violation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that conviction of petitioner in case of dowry demand amounts to misconduct and moral turpitude under Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Karmchari (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharte) Rules, 1968. Impugned orders were passed in accordance with law and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Petitioner was issued notice and he was aware of his conviction and had opportunity to submit his explanation. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1461 wherein it has been held that when misconduct is founded on conviction in a criminal case, dismissal can be ordered without departmental enquiry under the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In view of same, no interference may be called for and petition may be dismissed.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. Article 311(2)(a)(3) is quoted as under:-

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State:

(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 oppor