JUDGMENT Hari Singh, Member (Adm.)—In this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the only legal question arising for determination is whether before any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction in a criminal charge, a delinquent employee is entitled to be heard or not. 2. The factual matrix of this case is in a narrow compass. The applicant is a driver and while driving Bus No. 2609 on February 9, 1982 he hit a cyclist who succumbed to his injuries on February 17, 1982. After committing this accident the applicant was challaned under sections 304-A & 279, I P.C. and was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una on December 1, 1983 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months besides fine of Rs. 500. The applicant remained unsuccessful in the appeal against his conviction and subsequently vide order Annexure-PA dated June 14, 1986 he was removed from service by respondent No 2 under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called 1965 Rules). He filed an appeal against removal from service but vide order Annexure-PB dated September 21, 1987 he was informed that the appropriate authority had rejected his appeal. In this application the main grievance of the applicant is that the extreme penalty of removal from service has been imposed on bin) by the respondents without granting him an opportunity to explain his case and thus the impugned orders Annexures PA and PB are illegal and are required to be quashed. 3. The rival contention of the respondents as is apparent from their reply dated March 8, 1988 is that the conduct of the applicant was such which has direct bearing on the duties assigned to him and hence his removal from service was in-order and in accordance with the provisions of 1965 Rules and that no enquiry was called for because a Competent Court of law had convicted him in a criminal case. 4. We have heard Shri R. K. Gautam, the learned Counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record 5. 4. We have heard Shri R. K. Gautam, the learned Counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record 5. The admitted case of the parties is that the applicant was removed from service because he had been convicted under section 304-A by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una, without giving him any opportunity of hearing in terms of proviso to Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules deals with disciplinary case where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the proviso under this Rule reads as under :— "Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i)." 6. The applicants services were terminated vide office order Annexure-PA which reads as under : "Whereas Shri Jagtar Singh, I Driver H. R. T. C, Una has been conducted ? On a Criminal Charges under section 279/304-A, I.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una, And whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri Jagtar Singh-I Driver which has led to his conviction such as to render his further detention ? In the service of the Corporation undesirable, Now, therefore to exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 19(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, the undersigned hereby removes the said Shri Jagtar Singh-I, Driver from service with immediate effect." A bare perusal of this office order indicates that the applicant had been removed from service after his conviction in a criminal case without granting him any opportunity of hearing. Under Rule 19 of 1965 Rules the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the circumstances of the case and make such order thereon as it deems fit. 7. The word consider appearing in Rule 19 (3) ibid has abundantly been clarified by the apex Court in The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railways and another v T. R. Challappan, 1975(2) SLR 587. In that case also there was a rule on the same subject the crucial part of which is pari materia to Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules. The apex Court has observed as under :— "The word consider has been used in contradistinction to the word determine. In that case also there was a rule on the same subject the crucial part of which is pari materia to Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules. The apex Court has observed as under :— "The word consider has been used in contradistinction to the word determine. The rule making authority deliberately used the word consider and not determine because the word determine has a much wide scope. The word consider merely connotes that there should be active application of the mind by the disciplinary authority after considering the entire circumstances of the case in order to decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed on delinquent employee on his conviction on a criminal charge. This matter can be objectively determined only if the delinquent employee is heard and is given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed by the said authority. In other words, the term consider postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. Such an inquiry would be a summary inquiry to be held by the disciplinary authority after hearing the delinquent employee." It has further been observed by the apex Court in para 22 that: “The conviction of the delinquent employee would be taken as sufficient proof of misconduct and then the authority will have to embark upon a summary inquiry as to the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed on the delinquent employee and in the other course of the inquiry if the authority is of the opinion that the offence is too trivial or of a technical nature it may refuse to impose any penalty in spite of the conviction." 8. Conviction for a criminal charge does not necessarily mean that the employee concerned should be removed or dismissed from service. The nature of penalty will naturally depend upon the gravity of offence for which the employee has been convicted It is, therefore, necessary for the disciplinary authority to decide in such cases whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case what penalty, if at all, should be imposed on the delinquent employee. In determining this question the delinquent employee should be permitted to put forward his point of view and the circumstances of the case why no penalty or a lesser penalty should not be imposed on him. In determining this question the delinquent employee should be permitted to put forward his point of view and the circumstances of the case why no penalty or a lesser penalty should not be imposed on him. 9. Even assuming that a serious misconduct is committed and there is no defence against the same, an employee may, nevertheless, successfully plead before the employer that he may not deserve the extreme penalty. The delinquent employee may, in some cases, successfully plead for reduction of the penalty due to extenuating or mitigating circumstances, as also on account of compassionate considerations. A disciplinary authority cannot pre-judge the issue against the employee without giving him a reasocable opportunity of being heard. It may perhaps be that the authority may not yield. It has. nevertheless, to provide the employee with a reasonable opportunity to plead for a reduction in the penalty. [See T. C. Jose v. Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, 1989 (5) SLR 220]. Admittedly no tentative notice proposing the impugned penalty was issued to the applicant and no opportunity to explain his conduct was afforded. The impugned order Annexure-PA thus stems from a mechanical approach namely that the applicant should be removed from service simply because he is convicted. The order does not show what facts weighed with the respondents to resort to this type of draconian punishment. There has thus been a violation of the principles of natural justice and this order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed, 10. We now come to the appellate order, Annexure-PB. It is apparent from this order that the applicant had raised the plea of having not granted him an opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority but the appellate authority had burshed aside this plea with the following remarks: "As in this case the disciplinary authority has considered the conduct of said Shri Jagtar Singh, Driver which led to his conviction such as to render his further retention into service as undesirable. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard does not hold good," 11. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard does not hold good," 11. The appellate order was passed on September, 1987 by which time the first proviso under Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules had already been inserted in the said Rule but the appellate authority remained oblivious of this newly added proviso and repelled the appellants well founded contention with above remarks in a perfunctory manner. The appellate authority has also not applied its mind in terms of Rule 27 (2) (c) of the 1965 Rules while simply confirming the penalty imposed respondent No 2 and the adequacy, inadequacy or severity of punishment awarded has not been looked into by him and to us the appellate authority appears to have been swayed simply by the fact of the conviction of the appellant on a criminal charge and had rejected the appeal. All offences are not of the same character and should not be visited by the same punishment, irrespective of their nature, and if it is further found that the law itself stipulates major and minor punishments, it is difficult to concieve how the departmental punishment of removal from service must follow as a matter of fact in every type of conviction by Courts a criminal case To say so would be to fetter the discretion of the disciplinary authority. A conduct can be bad, it can be worse, and it can also be worst If that is so, and if law permits different kinds of punishments for different offences, a bad conduct cannot be equated with the worst one in the matter of punishment .See Hardyal Singh v. The State of H. P. and others, 1977(1) SLR 327. Thus the appellate order suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be quashed. 12. In view of above we allow this application and quash order Annexure-PA removing the applicant from service as also order Annexure-PB dismissing his appeal. However, it will be open to the authorities concerned to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made in this judgment. 12. In view of above we allow this application and quash order Annexure-PA removing the applicant from service as also order Annexure-PB dismissing his appeal. However, it will be open to the authorities concerned to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made in this judgment. The disciplinary authority, in case it decides to proceed further in the matter, while allowing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant should also consider the question of modifying the penalty and award any one of the lesser penalties instead of awarding the draconian penalty of removal from service. Application allowed.