A government employee dismissed for a criminal conviction cannot be reinstated solely on the basis of a stay on that conviction; reinstatement requires an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Arun, J.

The petitioner while working as L.D.Clerk/Village Assistant in the Revenue Department, was convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC under Exhibit P1 judgment dated 25.8.2007 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The appeal against Exhibit P1 judgment was dismissed by the Sessions Court under Exhibit P2 judgment dated 9.6.2009. Thereupon, the petitioner was dismissed from service by Exhibit P11 proceedings dated 29.12.2009, as mandated under Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.312 of 2010 challenging his conviction and sentence and by Exhibit P4 order dated 3.2.2010, execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioner was suspended subject to conditions. Later, the petitioner moved Crl.M.A.No.2718 of 2010 in the pending Criminal Revision Petition, seeking stay of Exhibit P1 judgment and his conviction thereunder. By Exhibit P14 interim order dated 18.3.2010, this Court stayed the conviction until further orders. Thereupon the petitioner sought reinstatement. By Exhibit P16, the request was rejected on the ground that revision is pending before the High Court.

2. The petitioner filed WP(C).No.7435 of 2010 before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P11 and for a direction to reinstate him in service. The writ petition was later transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.6297 of 2012. The sole contention urged before the Tribunal was that the only reason for the petitioner's dismissal being his conviction by a criminal court, the petitioner is bound to be reinstated in service on the conviction being stayed. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Sudheer v. KSRTC [2004 (3) KLT 217].

3. The Tribunal, after careful analysis of Rule 18 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, found that the petitioner having been dismissed on 29.12.2009, the stay of his conviction as per order dated

18.3.2010 will not inure to his benefit. It was held that reinstatement is possible only as per Clause (b) of the Second Proviso to Rule 18, which provides for reinstatement on acquittal of the charges alone. The Tribunal observed that by the interim order, the conviction of the petitioner is only kept in abeyance temporarily, which does not have the effect of undoing his conviction. The contention based on the decision in Sudheer was repelled by finding that even in Sudheer it was specifically held that the order suspending the conviction must be one passed by the Court after applying its mind to the consequences. It was observed that the one line order by which conviction of the petitioner was stayed, did not reflect any application of mind by the Court. It was therefore held that the petitioner should necessarily await the final outcome of the criminal revision petition.

4. In this original petition the contentions urged before the Tribunal is reiterated. The only point arising for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is liable to be reinstated on the strength of Exhibit P14 interim order staying the conviction. The petitioner having been dismissed in exercise of the power under Rule 18 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, it is only appropriate to analyse the Rule, as extracted hereunder;

"18. Special Procedure in certain cases. --

Notwithstanding anything contained in R.15, 16 & 17, (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government ser-

vant on the ground of conduct which had led to his con-

viction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reason to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or (iii) where the Government is satisfied that in the in-

terest of the security of the State it is not expedient to follow such procedure;

the Disciplinary Authority or the Governor, as the case may be, may consider the circumstances of the case a