BIRESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed in a Group 'D' post in the Trade Tax Tribunal on 08 September 1989. The appellant was convicted by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No. 146 of 1986 of offences under Sections 147, 325 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section 149, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment respectively for a period of six months, two years, three years and three years. Based on the order of conviction, the services of the appellant were terminated by the Chairperson of the Trade Tax Tribunal on 11 July 1990. The appellant filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17805 of 1990 (Biresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others), before the learned Single Judge questioning the legality of the termination. The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 02 December 2011 on the ground that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution provides that without any enquiry, an order of punishment can be passed if a civil servant has been convicted in a criminal case after considering his conduct which led to the conviction.

(2.) The submission, which has been urged on behalf of the appellant, is that in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 AIR(SC) 1416, the disciplinary authority is required to consider whether the conduct of the Government servant was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank following his conviction in a criminal case. In the present case, it was submitted that the disciplinary authority proceeded on a wrongful premise that a mere conviction would result in an order of termination.

(3.) Article 311 of the Constitution, insofar as is material, provides as follows: