M.A. Haleem vs Union of India and others

The Petitioner has been working with the respondents as Inspector of Works, Grade-3 at Secunderabad. The CBI filed two criminal cases i.e., CC No.20 of 1994 and CC No.21 of 1994 under Sections 409 IPC and 13(1)(c)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad tried the petitioner, convicted and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-on him in one of the cases and in another case also convicted and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-. After the judgment was pronounced by the Court the third respondent by order dated 30-10-1996 suspended him from service with effect from 21st June, 1996. A show cause notice was also issued as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner, in the meantime filed two Criminal appeals Nos.554 of 1996 and 555 of 1996 before the High Court and the High Court by order dated 11-7-1996 in Criminal MP No.2632 of 1996 and Criminal MP No.2633 of 1996 suspended the execution of sentence and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. The petitioner in the meanwhile submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice which was served upon him by the third respondent. He further states that, as the matter was pending before the High Court in Criminal Appeals and the sentence had been suspended, he requested that the proposed punishment be deferred till the matter was decided by the High Court. But, the third respondent issued an order of removal from service on 31-10-1997. It further ordered recovery of Rs.24,550.50. The petitioner was further asked to vacate the Railway quarters which he was occupying as a servant of the Railways.

The learned Counsel for the respondents, who has appeared, has taken a preliminary objection that in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, it is not open to the petitioner to come to this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he has to go to the Central Administrative Tribunal. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since he has challenged the Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India itself as being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India therefore this Writ Petition must be maintained as this relief will not be available to him before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He also relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court to show that the challenge to Article 311(2) cannot be entertained by the Tribunals. Be it as it may, the argument which has been advanced to challenge Article 311(2) is itself perverse and absurd and needs to be rejected outright. The argument made is that, if a person is acquitted by a Criminal Court of a charge he is not absolved by the department of the charges of misconduct as has been held by Supreme Court in various judgments and as it is settled law that once a Government servant is acquitted by a Criminal Court of the charges levelled against him the departments are not debarred from holding domestic enquiries and coming to their own conclusions with regard to culpability of the person. Therefore it must be construed that when there is conviction there may not be automatic removal from service as is provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. For dismissing this argument as absurd a long discussion is not needed at all because two situations are altogether different. If a person is accused like the petitioner u/s 409 IPC and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and for instance if he had been acquitted, still the department would have to see whether the person was suitable to be retained in the department because the Criminal Courts in our country require definite proof before they convict a person. Even the slightest doubt is sufficient to acquit a person of a criminal charge. This may not be so for retention of a person in Government service. A person acquitted of a charge by a Criminal Court may still be delinquent and he may still be proved to have committed misconduct within the Service Rules applicable to a particular case. On me other hand if a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years as in the present case what is expected of the department to which the person belongs than what is provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

For these reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of dismissal before appropriate forum. No costs.