Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1243 (MP)

SHIV BABU v. STATE OF M P

2007-12-03

R.S.JHA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD Shri Sanjay Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. ( 2. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 3-2-2007 and 29-10-2007 passed by the Competent Authority and the appellate Authority respectively removing the petitioner from service on account of his conviction for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act for a period of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ -. ( 3. ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of Regulation 238, the impugned order of removal of the petitioner dated 3-2-2007 could not have been passed as the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction is pending before this Court and vide order dated 25-4-2007 the appellant has been granted bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner could only have been removed from service by holding a full fledged departmental inquiry and in the absence of the same, the impugned order of removal deserves to be quashed. ( 4. ) FROM a perusal of the averments and documents filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ -. It is also clear that the petitioner has filed an appeal against his conviction which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 528/2007 and the petitioner has been granted bail in the said appeal vide order dated 25-4-2007. ( 5. ) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioners service is governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, m. P. CS (CCA) Rule, 1966 ). ( 5. ) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioners service is governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, m. P. CS (CCA) Rule, 1966 ). Rule 19 of the m. P. CS (CCA) Rule, 1966 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to Rule 18 (which provide and prescribe the procedure for conducting a Departmental Inquiry) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on account of his conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. Apparently, in view of the non-abstantee clause in Rule 19, the detailed procedure prescribed for conducting a Departmental Inquiry under Rules 14 to 18 of the M. P. CS (CCA)Rule, 1966 is excluded where orders are passed under Rule 19 on the basis of conviction of a Government servant on criminal charges. In the present case the disciplinary Authority has exercised powers under Rule 19 and has dispensed with the services of the petitioner on account of his conviction in the present case without a Departmental Inquiry and rightly so, as in such a case the rule empowers the Disciplinary Authority to pass orders as it deems fit without following the procedure prescribed in Rules 14 to 18 of the M. P. CS (CCA)Rule, 1966. ( 6. ) THE next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of pending appeal of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority could not have passed the impugned order of removal. Regulation 238 cannot be read in isolation as is being read by the petitioner. It has to be read subservient to Rule 19 of the M. P. CS (CCA) Rule, 1966 and along with Regulation 240, which clearly authorize and empower the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders on conviction of a Government servant by a Competent Criminal Court without awaiting for decision of the pending criminal appeal. The said powers conferred on the Disciplinary Authority are apparently in consonance with settled principle of service Jurisprudence that the continuance of a convicted employee in service is not conducive for good administration. ( 7. The said powers conferred on the Disciplinary Authority are apparently in consonance with settled principle of service Jurisprudence that the continuance of a convicted employee in service is not conducive for good administration. ( 7. ) IN the circumstances in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the M. P. CS (CCA) Rule, 1966, which in any case have precedence over the police regulation which are only by way of executive instructions and in view of regulation 240,i am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of r. N. Gupta Vs. J. N. K. V. Jabalpur, 1996 MPLJ 507 and Jamna Prasad Vs. State of M. P. 2003 (1) MPLJ 296 . ( 8. ) IN the circumstances, I do not find any manifest illegality or patent illegality in the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate authority. However, it needs no specific emphasis to state that in case the petitioner is successful in his appeal, he may approach the authorities for reconsidering his case in accordance with Police Regulation 240. ( 9. ) THE petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage.