MOHAMMAD YASEEN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture and P.A. to Collector (Agricuiture Production, Mababoobnager) dated 27-3-1974, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, viz., the Joint Director of Agriculture, in his memo dated 29-10-1979. Toe petitioner was a Sub-Assistant in the Agriculture Department. He was A6 in C.C. No. 67 of 1971 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthi. He was convicted under Section 323 read with Sec.147 I.P.C. and sentenced to four months simple imprisonment under the judgment and order, dated 31-12-1971. All the six accused were convicted and sentenced. They filed Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1972 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, which was dismissed on 21-4-1973. Their revision to the High Court, Crl. R.C. No. 153/73 was also dismissed on 12-10-1973. By an order dated 5-1-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, the petitioner was deemed to have been suspended with effect from 24-11-1973 as per the provisions contained in Rule 13 (2) of A.P.C.C.A. Rules. Thereafter, it appears, the Sub Inspector of the concerned police station brought to the notice of the authorities the conviction and sentence and the fact that the petitioner also served the sentence. The record placed before us contains the note file bearing No. Estt. B1/9656/73 dated 6-12-1973, which was put up to the Deputy Director of Agriculture. The note refers to the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed upon him, the order of suspension which was passed against him and then states :

(2.) Mr. P. Balakrishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that dismissal or removal is not automatic consequent upon a conviction by a Criminal Court and that the authority competent to impose punishment has to take into consideration the conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, whether under proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or under Rule 19 (3)(a) of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules. He submits that in this case the authority has acted and passed the impugned order on the assumption that a criminal charge automatically entails the dismissal from service. He submits that the authority never applied its mind to the conduct involved or facts and circumstances of the case or to the gravity of offence far which he was punished and the effect it has upon the petitioner's service.

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Sri N. Subbareddy, the learned Government Pleader, that the petitioner was convicted for house trespass under Section 448 I.P.C. besides the offence of causing simple hurt under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to four months imprisonment and that in the circumstances, the authority was justified in passing the impugned order.