Criminal conviction enables disciplinary action under Rule 19 CCS(CCA) Rules for removal despite prior departmental penalty under Rule 14; deemed suspension under Rule 10(2)(b) valid from conviction date irrespective of sentence suspension.

ORDER

(Per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J))

The applicant filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“… to call for the records pertaining to order F. No.5(4)/2006- Vigilance (Vol.II), dated 11.07.2017 and Memorandum No. 5(4)/2006-Vig. (Vol.II), dated 10/11.07.2017 and declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the said order of suspension and said Memorandum to impose a penalty of „removal from service‟ as illegal, arbitrary and null and void in law and set aside and quash the said Order and Memorandum and direct the respondents to revoke the suspension of the applicant forthwith with all consequential benefits, and allow the applicant to continue in service awaiting the outcome of the pending criminal proceedings and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.“

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are as follows:

The applicant, while working as Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Visakhapatnam, the CBI, Visakhapatnam registered a case vide RC 16(A)/2006 against him under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a final report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed, wherein Mr. M. Nageswara Rao, Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnnam was shown as Accused No.2. The CBI Court took cognizance of the same and commenced trial against the applicant and the other co-accused vide CC No. 13/2007. In respect of the very same charges framed in the above criminal case, the respondents issued a departmental charge memo dt. 15.07.2009 to the applicant. The applicant submitted representation to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance pending the above criminal trial and the same was not considered by the disciplinary authority. Resultantly, inquiry in the departmental proceedings was conducted wherein the inquiry officer held the charges as not proved. However, the disciplinary authority issued Memorandum disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and vide Memo dt. 20.10.2016 imposed penalty of “Reduction of the pay by three incremental stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect”. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dt. 28.11.2016 to the appellate authority.

3. While so, in the criminal trial, the applicant was convicted on 31.05.2017. It is submitted by the applicant that he was not detained for more than 48 years even after conviction. It is his specific plea that the Special Judge for CBI Cases suspended the sentence on 31.05.2017 till 29.06.2017 in Crl. MP No. 941/2017 filed by the applicant. Subsequently, Hon’ble High Court vide order dt. 12.06.2017 suspended the said sentence of imprisonment in Crl. A.MP No. 1207/2017 in Crl. A. No. 595 of 2017. However, he was placed under deemed suspension vide order dt. 11.07.2017 under Ruler 10(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short “Rules”) as if the applicant was detained in custody for more than 48 hours. The applicant was also issued with Memorandum dt. 10/11.07.2017 proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service vide memo dt. 11.07.2017. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed this OA.

4. It is the contention of the applicant that in spite of her request not to proceed with the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules pending the criminal case on the very same charges, the respondents have conducted an inquiry and imposed the penal