USHA Vs. HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant while working as an employee of Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (in short 'the Corporation') was dismissed from service of the Corporation on the basis that she has been convicted in a criminal case by the C.B.I. Court. Same was challenged in this case. Learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 18677 of 1977 found that the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Service Rules, (in short 'Service Rules') empowers the Corporation to take such action on the event of conviction and sentence passed by a criminal Court. Same is the subject matter of challenge.

(2.) Two points have been urged in support of the writ appeal by the learned counsel for appellant. Firstly, it is submitted that an appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence and appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence. Therefore the automatic termination is without any basis. Secondly, it is submitted that no opportunity was granted before termination was effected. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submitted that in view of the specific provisions in Clause 107 of the Rules and Clause 64(2) of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings (in short 'the Manual') issued by the Government of Kerala, which is applicable to the Corporation, the order passed directing termination cannotbe faulted.

(3.) Factual position is undisputed. The appellant was convicted in C.C. No. 5 of 1994 by the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)I. Under Clause 107 of the service rules an employee, who was convicted for offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other law for the time being in force, shall be liable to be dismissed from service of Corporation. Clause 64(2) of the Manual deals with cases where services of the concerned employee is found to be not in the interest of the Corporation. It is to be noted that the appellant was placed under suspension from January 22, 1997 and the order of termination is dated August 30, 1997. It was observed that further continuance of the employee would not be in the interest of the Corporation.