T. C. JOSE Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was suspended from service pending enquiry into the allegations of criminal misappropriation of the funds of the Board. That was on 1-3-1985. He was also simultaneously prosecuted in C. C. No. 567/8) for offences punishable under S.409 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha. The Magistrate convicted him. He filed an appeal against the conviction and before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and obtained an order of stay of the sentence. The respondent, however, passed Ext. P1 order on 21-5-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service in view of his conviction on a criminal charge under S.499 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that Ext. P1 order is illegal and liable to be vacated.

(2.) The ground urged by counsel for the petitioner is that Ext. P1 order ought to have been preceded by a notice to show cause and an enquiry conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. Reference is made to Clause.21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders to the effect that conviction in any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and upon being sentenced to imprisonment as a punishment constitutes a misconduct. Reference is also made to Clause.24 of the Standing Orders prescribing procedure to be followed in disciplinary cases. According to that clause, the misconduct can be found only after conducting an enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders. Reference is also made to Clause.26 of the Standing Orders to the effect that:

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry on 1-3-1985. The subject matter of the enquiry was a misconduct of having been involved in the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha in C. C. 567/83. The petitioner has no case that his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude is not a misconduct. It is agreed that his appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Counsel submits that he has filed a revision petition before this Court and the same is pending. In the light of these facts, it cannot be disputed that Ext. P1 order imposed a penalty for a misconduct.