VIJAYA SHANKER TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who was a constable in U.P. Police, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences Under Sections 302/147/148/149/307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in 1979 by the trial court. Against his conviction, the Petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court, which is still pending. While entertaining the appeal, this court granted the following interim order on 22.6.1979 suspending the sentence:

(2.) UNDER Clause (a) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, no reasonable opportunity of being heard is required to be given to a Government servant, who is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, because in such a case, Clause (2) of Article 311 which provides for such an opportunity, is not applicable. Following decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsl Ram Patel. : AIR 1985 SC 1416, a. Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Narain Shukla v. State of U.P., 1989 (2) UPLBEC 418, has held that a Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court cannot be dismissed from service merely on the ground of conviction, but the appropriate authority has to consider the conduct of such an employee, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1985, Jamuna Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Learned single Judge was, however, of the view that conviction Under Section 302, I.P.C. Is so serious that no further consideration is required and mere conviction is sufficient to dismiss a Government servant. Relevant passage from the judgment of learned single Judge is as Under:

(3.) IN view of the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 311 of Constitution of India, no Government servant can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges levelled against him and given reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. This clause, however, is not applicable to three types of cases mentioned in second proviso to Clause (2), with the result that no opportunity is required to be given to the Government servant if his case falls within those three exceptions mentioned in second proviso. Clause (a) of second proviso, which is relevant for this case, is as Under: