STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the respondent was charged under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the IPC. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur. Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the High Court. It is envisaged in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India that no person can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after enquiry and after he is informed of the charges. Proviso (a) to Article 311(2) lays down that this proviso will not be applicable to the persons who are dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Similar is the language used in Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishan Behari and others, 1996 2 SCC 714. He further submits that no serious prejudice has been caused as the order of dismissal is based on conviction of the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent has been dismissed without giving a show-cause notice and without being heard. Respondent's service record was not considered and the punishing authority did not apply its mind. Order No. 3097-4096/EA dated 22.5.1981 was illegal, ultra vires and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Appellant No. 2 could not have invoked Article 311 of the Constitution. Principles of natural justice should have been adhered to.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Om Parkash v. Director Postal Services,197 1 SLR 648 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Narsingh, 1975 AIR(SC) 2216.