Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 542 (TS)

R. Rajaramkar Atul Kumar v. State Of Telangana,

2020-07-09

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT P.Naveen Rao, J. - Heard Mr. P.Bhakthavatsal, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and learned standing counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 28.05.2020, impugned in this writ petition, on the ground that petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar in CC No.108 of 2015 dated 27.09.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.2724 of 2018. In I.A.No.1 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.2724 of 2018, by order dated 23.10.2018, this Court granted suspension of sentence only. Prima facie, from the judgment of the lower Court, it is seen that on the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe to do official favour, petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and further ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). 4. Rule 9 of Telangana Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991) provides various punishments that can be imposed on the delinquent employee. According to the proviso appended to Rule 9(X), in the proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, corruption and moral turpitude, punishment of dismissal should be imposed. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 dispenses with following detailed procedure as required by Rules 20 to 24 of the Rules, 1991 in case of conviction recorded by the competent Court. A conjoint reading of the proviso appended to Rule 9(X) and Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991, based on the conviction recorded by the criminal Court, punishment of dismissal from service can be imposed without conducting enquiry. 5. Thus, I see no merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that detailed procedure as required by Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991 was not followed before imposing punishment of dismissal and petitioner ought not to have been dismissed from service straightaway merely because conviction is recorded by the criminal Court. 6. He further submits that since criminal appeal is pending, pending decision by the appellate Court, petitioner cannot be dismissed from service merely based on the conviction recorded by the lower Court. 7. 6. He further submits that since criminal appeal is pending, pending decision by the appellate Court, petitioner cannot be dismissed from service merely based on the conviction recorded by the lower Court. 7. I see no merit in this contention also. Law is well settled on this aspect. [ K.C.Saveen vs. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584 ; LIC of India vs. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah,2020 SCCOnlineSC 234] . 8. In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. B.Jagjeevan Rao, (2014) 13 SCC 239 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Rule 25(1) of the Rules. The respondent therein was also convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "9. ....The requirement of the said Rule, as it seems, is that the conduct of government servant that had led to conviction on the criminal charge and the circumstances of the case are to be considered by the disciplinary authority before imposing the appropriate punishment. xxx 11. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law and keeping in view the expected standard of administration, conviction on the charge of corruption has to be viewed seriously and unless the conviction is annulled, an employer cannot be compelled to take an employee back in service. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in its interpretation of Rule 25(1) and further committed illegality in not keeping in mind the distinction between stay of conviction and suspension of sentence as envisaged under Section 389(1) of the Code. 9. In Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras vs. S.Nagoor Meena, (1995) 3 SCC 377 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "10. What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice." 10. Thus, I do not see any error in the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner based on the conviction recorded by the criminal Court. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice." 10. Thus, I do not see any error in the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner based on the conviction recorded by the criminal Court. However, it is needless to observe that if petitioner succeeds in criminal appeal, it is always open to petitioner to request for review of the decision made by enclosing a copy of the judgment and this order does not come in the way of consideration of such application as and when made pursuant to the decision of the appellate Court. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.