Subsequent acquittal from criminal charges does not automatically invalidate a lawful removal from service if due process was followed.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) to set aside the order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.231/Tr.Sectt/2013 dated 30.09.2013 and Lr.No.9800/GAW/ESTT/E1/2022 dated 11.11.2022 and consequentially;

ii) direct the first respondent rescind the order of removal imposed on the petitioner and to settle the pensionary and retirement benefits to the petitioner;

iii) and pass such other order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The applicant joined service in the Department of Transport of Government of Puducherry as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the 1984. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 27.06.2001. While the applicant was officiating as Regional Transport Officer, Karaikkal in the year 2010 the CBI laid a trap based on anonymous complaint and an FIR was registered against him under Section 7 and under 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The applicant was placed under suspension on 12.07.2010 thereafter the suspension was revoked on 22.08.2011 and permitted the petitioner to join service. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge of Puducherry at Karaikkal convicted the applicant on 06.03.2012 in Special C.C. No. 1/2010. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the applicant filed an appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 185/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

2.2. While matter stood thus, the respondent No. 4 had removed the applicant from service on the last day of his service on 30.09.2013 by invoking Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant on 18.01.2018. The conviction and the sentence imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Puducherry at Karaikkal in C.C.No.1 of 2020 on 06.03.2012 was set aside by acquitting the applicant from all charges.

2.3. The applicant had made representation to the first respondent for revocation of the punishment imposed on him. Despite the order of acquittal by the Hon'ble High Court in appeal filed by him in Crl. Appeal No. 185/2012, the 1st respondent did not revoke the major punishment imposed on the applicant.

2.4. The order of removal was passed on the date of retirement of the applicant ie., 30.09.2013 hastily without following the due procedure of law by an incompetent authority. The order was passed by the Special Secretary to Government (Transport) who was not the Appointing Authority for the petitioner herein who belonged to Group-B Category and therefore the order was issued against the provisions of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. 2.5. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 of the said Rules may be imposed on a member of Central Civil Service other than the General Central Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President. In terms of the schedule to these rules, the Administrator, Puducherry is the Appointing authority for Group-B category of posts. Therefore, the removal order issued by the Special Secretary to Government (Transport) subordinate to the Administrator is void ab initio.

2.6. The applicant states that the order of removal of the petitioner from Government Service was passed by the Special Secretary to Government by invoking Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In other words, he had dispensed with the inquiry and imposed the punishment straight away. Yet again, the Special Secretary to Government had contravened clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and also Rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence the respondents have failed to foll