DOST MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Assistant Engineer, (Phones), Allahabad, dated Aug. 23,; 1978, terminating the petitioner's services under R. 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and also against the order of the appellate authority dated 6-12-1978, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of termination.

(2.) Dost Mohammad, the petitioner, was employed as peon in the Posts and Telegraph Department and posted in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Phones, at Allahabad. The petitioner's real brother, Mukhtar Ahmad, was also employed as Extra- Departmental Agent under the Posts and Telegraph Department. On 18-4-1974 an incident of marpit took place in the petitioner's village as a result of which the petitioner along with his brother Mukhtar Ahmad and his father Badruddin was convicted for an offence under S. 323, IPC. An appeal against trial court's order was partly allowed and the petitioner's conviction was upheld but the sentence was modified by the District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner, his brother Mukhtar Ahmad and Badruddin, petitioner's father, all were directed to undergo imprisonment for one month, further each of them was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer, Phones, removed the petitioner from service under R. 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, by his order dated Aug. 23, 1978. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order but that was rejected by the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, by his order dated 6-12-1978. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders.

(3.) The petitioner was a Government servant and he was entitled to the constitutional protection of Art. 311. Rr. 14 to 18 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, prescribe procedure for impsoing penalties on a Government servant which provide for the issue of a charge-sheet and giving of an opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his explanation and to cross-examine witnesses and to produce witnesses in his defence. These Rules are designed to afford reasonable opportunity of defence to the Government servant as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. Rule 19, however, incorporates the principle contained in proviso (a) to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, which lays down that Art. 311 (2) shall not apply where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to the conviction on a criminal charge. Proviso (a) to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution does not contemplate holding of an enquiry and giving of opportunity as contemplated by cl. (2) of the Article before imposition of a major penalty. Rule 19 enunciates the same principle and the same considerations would be applicable to R. 19 also. It is thus clear that if a delinquent Government servant is convicted of a criminal offence the competent authority is entified to impose any of the penalties contemplated under the rules without holding any departmental enquiry as required by Rr. 14 to 18.