AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sucha Singh son of Surat Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") was working as Secretary under the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Limited respondent- defendant (for short "the defendant").
Having completed all the codal formalities, the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Judge, by virtue of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2005 (Ex. P1). The appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence (Ex. P1) stands admitted by this Court, vide order (Ex. P2). Ultimately, on the basis of conviction/sentence in a criminal case, the plaintiff was dismissed from service, by means of impugned dismissal order dated 2.2.2006 (Ex. P4) passed by the competent authority.
Aggrieved by the impugned dismissal order (Ex. P4), the plaintiff filed the suit and challenged the said order, inter-alia on the ground that the same has been passed against the statutory rules, principle of natural justice, without issuing any show cause notice to him and providing any opportunity of being heard. Hence the same was termed to be illegal and arbitrary etc. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of civil Court, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. His services are stated to be governed by the Service Rules, 2001 of HUSEFED and he has alternative remedy to file appeal before the appellate authority. The defendant claimed that since the misconduct of corruption of plaintiff is proved, so, he was rightly dismissed from service in accordance with the statutory rules and law by the competent authority. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands.
The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by way of judgment and decree dated 13.8.2008.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was accepted and suit of plaintiff was dismissed by the 1st appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009.
The appellant-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court and preferred the present regular second appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context.
Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard was provided to the plaintiff, so the impugned dismissal order (Ex. P4) is illegal, but the 1st appellate Court erred in dismissing his suit, lacks merit.
As is evident from the record that the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on accusation of having committed the offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Judge, by means of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2005 (Ex. P1). It is not a matter of dispute that as per rule 18 of the Punjab State Cooperative Housing Federation Service Rules, 2001, the employees of Housefed will be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 in the matter of disciplinary action.
Above being the position on record, now the sole point that requires to be determined in this appeal is, as to whether the defendant was legally obliged to issue show cause notice or provide any opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff before passing the dismissal order (Ex. P4) or not?
Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative.
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India postulates that no person/employee shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry, in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Proviso (a) to this Article further posits that this Clause shall not apply, where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
Similarly, Rule 13 of the Service Rules is an exception to the general rules of enquiry and provides a special procedure in certain cases, which escalates that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 8 to 12, shall apply where any penalty is imposed on a Government employee on the ground of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that the competent authority has the absolute power to dismiss an employee from service on the basis of his conviction. Moreover, this matter is not res integra and is well settled.
An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in case Parminder Singh Sodhi v. State of Punjab,1 2009 (1) S.C.T. 687, wherein it was ruled that "the competent authority has the power under Rule 13.1 to dismiss an employee from service on the basis of his conviction, without affording any opportunity of being heard." Not only that, the same view was again reiterated by this Court in case Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another,2 2011 (3) S.C.T. 65. Therefore, to my mind, the first appellate Court has rightly held that dismissal order (Ex. P4) was legal & valid and cannot be set aside. Thus, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff to assail the findings of the 1st appellate Court in this respect. All other arguments, now sought to be urged on his behalf in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the 1st appellate Court.
No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff.
In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such.