SHAMBHU NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sanding Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is true that he was convicted in Session Trial No. 183 of 2003, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC by Special Session Judge (E.C.Act), Mirzapur, he preferred a Criminal Appeal No.6301 of 2007 wherein he was enlarged on bail but the disciplinary authority, in the meantime, has passed order dated 04.07.2007 in purported exercise of powers under U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.1991 Rules') without considering at all the conduct led to conviction and whether petitioner was liable for punishment of dismissal or any other punishment. He vehemently contended that a bare perusal of impugned order itself shows that disciplinary authority has proceeded on the assumption that as soon as a Government servant is convicted, dismissal from service is natural consequence thereof and accordingly the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Since learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal issue, learned Standing Counsel agreed that the writ petition be heard and disposed of finally on the basis of record of writ petition itself and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally.