Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
Shashikant S/o. Doddagouda – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.100359 OF 2025 (S-RES)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI A.P.MURARI, ADVOCATE
Termination based solely on conviction is unjustified when the conviction is stayed pending appeal, allowing for reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389 - Termination of employment following conviction - The petitioner, a Maintenance Engineer, was terminated post-conviction; however, the conviction was stayed pending appeal - The court emphasized that termination based solely on conviction is not justified when the conviction is stayed. (Paras 4, 8, 10)
(B) Employment Law - Principles of disciplinary action - The court noted that penalties for conviction can vary and should not automatically lead to dismissal, as per the precedent set in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS TULSIRAM PATEL AND OTHERS, [AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 1416]. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted in a criminal case, leading to a show cause notice for termination. The conviction was later stayed by the Division Bench, prompting the petitioner to seek reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination was unjustified as the conviction had been stayed, and directed the respondents to consider reinstatement.
Issues: The main issues were whether termination was justified based on a conviction that was subsequently stayed and the appropriate penalty for such a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the stay of conviction entitled the petitioner to reinstatement, emphasizing that mere suspension of sentence does not confer the same benefit.
Result: The petition is disposed; respondents directed to consider reinstatement.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of termination dated 17.01.2025.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri S.S. Yadrami appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari representing for the respondents.
3. The fact in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as a Maintenance Engineer or a Signal Maintainer in the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation and is subsequently promoted to the cadre of Junior Engineer on 22.11.2019. Between the aforesaid two dates i.e., the date of appointment on 27.01.2012 and the date of promotion on 22.11.2019, the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime. The crime is tried by the Court of Sessions in S.C. (A.C) No.12 of 2015, which ends up in conviction of the petitioner on 21.10.2024. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of conviction, files an appeal before the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No.100548/2024. The sentence is suspended on 13.11.2024. The petitioner is then issued a show cause notice on 23.11.2024 seeking to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of him getting convicted of the offences in S.C. (A.C.) No.12 of 2015 in terms of the order dated 21.10.2024 by the concerned Court. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. This ends up in termination of the petitioner on 17.01.2025.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.S. Yadrami appearing for the petitioner would contend that on conviction of an employee, the only penalty that is inevitably to be imposed is not dismissal from service, the penalties can ranging from removal, compulsory retirement and then to dismissal from service. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS TULSIRAM PATEL AND OTHERS , [ AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 1416 ]. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that a subsequent development would ennure to the benefit of the petitioner. The Division Bench which was hearing the criminal appeal, has by its order dated 25.01.2025 stayed the conviction. In the light of the said stay of the order of conviction, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner becomes entitled to the reinstatement into services.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari representing the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions contending that once the employee incurs conviction, the inevitable choice would be imposition of penalty of dismissal from service as on the date of passage of the order of termination, the only circumstance was sentence was suspended and bail granted, but there was no stay of conviction. Therefore, no fault can be found with the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner on account of the subsistence of the order of conviction. He would submit that, in the light of the interim order of stay granted, the consequential action should be directed by this Court.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and the issue lies in a narrow compass at this juncture. The petitioner joining the services is a matter of record and him getting embroiled in a crime and convicted is also a matter of record. The conviction leading to issuance of a show cause notice as to why the services of the petitioner should not be terminated is the trigger point of the petition. The petitioner replies to the said notice, by then the Division Bench, which was hearing the criminal appeal suspends the sentence and grants bail, but does not grant stay of the order of conviction. Therefore, the respondents chose to terminate the services of the petitioner by the impugned order.
8. The submission of the learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari would merit acceptance as no fault can be found with the respondents in terminating the services as on the date of ter
