Conviction persists despite sentence stay; employer may dismiss railway servant without inquiry under Art. 311(2)(a).

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-

“i. to set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.20174 (Annexure No.1 to the O.A.) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure No.2) passed by the respondent No.3.

ii. to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary as well as entire retiral benefits with all consequential benefits to the applicant.”

3. During the pendency of the instant Original Application, the sole applicant died and was substituted by his legal heirs.

4. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application are that the husband of the applicant Ram Deo Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’) was working as Khalasi (Helper) under the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Northern Railway. He was implicated in a criminal case arising out of an unfortunate incident of the year 1996 involving a village clash between two groups, in which two persons lost their lives. The said case was tried as Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1998 before the Sessions Court, Mau. During the pendency of the trial, the applicant was granted bail and continued to discharge his duties without interruption.

4.1 Subsequently, the Sessions Court convicted the Ram Deo Yadav under Sections 147, 323/149 and 302 IPC and vide judgments dated 18.07.2011 and 23.07.2011 awarded sentences of life imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved thereby, the Ram Deo Yadav preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4432 of 2011 before the High Court, Allahabad, which vide order dated 30.11.2011 granted bail and stayed the realization of fine.

4.2 The High Court, Allahabad, vide order dated 31.01.2012, further stayed the sentence awarded by the trial court during pendency of the criminal appeal, specifically taking note of the fact that the applicant (Ram Deo Yadav) was a Railway servant and that continuance of the sentence would adversely affect his service career.

4.3 As alleged by the applicant, despite the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court, the respondent authorities placed the applicant under suspension on 16.12.2011 and thereafter, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 13.04.2012 solely on the basis of conviction, without considering the stay of sentence and without examining the conduct of the applicant.

4.4 The applicant preferred a statutory Appeal dated 08.05.2012. During pendency thereof, this Tribunal directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal. However, the Respondent- 2 rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 11.04.2017. The applicant has since attained the age of superannuation, and being aggrieved by the impugned orders filed the instant OA before this Tribunal.

5. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 27.03.2019 wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant and stated that the applicant, while working as Khalasi Helper under the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Northern Railway, Lucknow Division, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Mau in Criminal Case No. 117 of 1998 under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine. Though the applicant preferred an appeal before the High Court, Allahabad and was granted bail, the conviction continued to operate.

5.1