D RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a Senior Divisional Manager, DivisionV, United Insurance Company Limited at Hyderabad. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the Court of Special Judge for Trail of Offences under SC and ST (POA)-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Secunderabad.

(2.) THE trial Court convicted him and imposed the sentence, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. THE petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2009 before this Court against the said judgment. It is stated that this Court stayed the sentence but not the conviction. THE Director and General Manager of the Company, 2nd respondent herein passed office order, dated 26.04.2011 dismissing the petitioner from service, on the basis of the conviction and sentence suffered by him. THE petitioner challenges the same. He contends that the respondents did not conduct any departmental enquiry, much less initiated any disciplinary proceedings and straight away, the order of dismissal was passed. It is pleaded that even where an employee is convicted and sentenced for any offence, it becomes necessary to issue notice, and to conduct enquiry under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the Rules). THE petitioner further submits that the Rules, which are not applicable to the service conditions of the employees in the company, were invoked.

(3.) SRI K.SRInivas Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and SRI P.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, submit that the Rules have been framed strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and the contention raised by the petitioner to the contrary is untenable. They further state that though Rules 25 to 27 of the Rules prescribe a detailed procedure to be followed before any punishment is imposed, against an employee, such a requirement is exempted under Rule 30 in certain cases including the instances, where an employee is convicted by a court on a criminal charge. They submit that once the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, the inevitable consequence is that the punishment under the relevant provisions of law must be imposed.