STATE OF A P Vs. P RAJSHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of cases, the question involved is regarding the authority of the State/Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty on a Government servant, based upon his conduct leading to his conviction on a criminal charge, as provided under Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules). The said issue is no more res Integra in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera (1) (1995) 3 SCC 377; Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar (2) (1997) 11 SCC 383; Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar (3) (1997) 7 SCC 514 = 1997 (5) ALT 20 (D.N); K.C. Sareen v. CBI (4) (2001) 6 SCC 584; Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. N.K. Sharma (5) 1997 SCC (L&S) 1766; Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida (6) (2007) 10 SCC 385 = 2007 (4) SCJ 839 = 2008 (1) ALT 4.1 (DNSC); apart from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Guntur v. B. Syamala Kumari (7) 2006 (6) ALT 771 (DB).

(2.) One such matter involving the same issue was decided by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by order dated 19.04.2007 in O.A.No.2206 of 2007 whereunder the order of the State in G.O.Ms.No.91 Finance (ADM-III) Department dated 16.04.2007 dismissing the employee from service by invoking Rule 25 (i) of the Rules referred to above was upheld. The said employee preferred WP.No.16102 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by another Division Bench by order dated 07.08.2007 holding, inter alia, that though the petitioner was dismissed in view of his conviction in C.C.No.34 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, a criminal appeal being Crl.A.No.371 of 2007 was filed against the said judgment before this Court and the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judge was suspended by this Court vide Crl.A.MP. No.497 of 2007 dated 29.03.2007. This Court, therefore, held that in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal as well as the suspension of sentence imposed by the ACB Court, the judgment passed by the ACB Court has not become final, therefore, passing of G.O.MS.No.91 at this stage amounts to violation of the special procedure as laid down under Rule 25 of the CCA Rules and thereby the same is hit by principles of subjudice and consequently the order of the tribunal as well as the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 16.04.2007 referred to above was set aside. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent appears to have brought to the notice of the aforesaid Division Bench; the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above.

(3.) Based on the aforesaid pronouncement of the Division Bench in the aforesaid WP.No.16102 of 2007, the APAT has allowed several of the OA's involved in this batch and set aside the order of dismissal by holding that in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal and the suspension of sentence, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. Consequently, while setting aside the said dismissal order the tribunal directed the State to reinduct the applicants forthwith with a liberty to pass appropriate orders leaving it open for Government to keep the applicants under suspension under Rule 8(2)(b) of the CCA Rules. The aforesaid orders are questioned by the State in this batch of writ petitions.