HANSRAJ KAHAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri K. S. Sidhu, senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dated the 29th July, 1965. The appellant was convicted by this Court on 21st February. 1963, for committing contempt of Court and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 or in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. In the course of the judgment this Court observed as under:

(2.) MR. Parkash Narain, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that dismissal of the appellant was on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge since the conviction for contempt was a conviction on a criminal charge. He further submits that the dismissal contemplated by Rule 18 and by proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is on account of conduct of the employee and not on account of his conviction. He says that if a person is convicted on a criminal charge he can be dismissed without any enquiry even if the conduct taken into consideration is the conduct for which he had been convicted, as well as any other conduct, Referring to the facts of the present case, Mr. Parkash Narain submits that the appellant had been convicted of a criminal charge, namely, contempt of Court, and even if he was dismissed for having committed forgery as well as contempt no opportunity was required to be given. He further emphasises the above-quoted passages from the judgment of this court and submits that, as a matter of fact, this Court found that the appellant had committed forgery and consequently this misconduct could also have been taken into consideration for the purpose of inflicting punishment on the appellant. I need not pronounce on the validity of the appellant's contention that his conviction was not on a criminal charge since I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that he ought to succeed on his second contention. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant had been convicted on a criminal charge, namely, contempt of Court, no opportunity need have been given to him either under Article 311 of the Constitution or under Rule 18 of the said Rules in case he had been dismissed on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 is more or less to the same effect as Article 311 (2), Proviso (a) and provides that where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge no enquiry as contemplated by rule 15 need be held. It is, therefore, clear that before an action under Rule 18 (1) can be justified his dismissal must be on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction. What is the position here? The conduct of committing forgery never led to the appellant's conviction on a criminal charge. The dismissal for a conduct other than the conduct leading to a conviction on a criminal charge could only be ordered after an enquiry as provided in Rule 15. I can well visualise a case where the conduct of a person may constitute several offences. The person concerned may have been convicted only for one of these offences, yet he may be dismissed for that conduct without an enquiry thought convicted for all the offences that could be said to have been committed as a result of that conduct. To give one example take the case of a Government servant who accepts illegal gratification. That may constitute offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act. He may be tried and convicted only for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, yet his conduct of accepting illegal gratification would be one leading to his conviction on a criminal charge. In such a case if the punishing Authority says that the employee has accepted illegal gratification in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code and should, therefore, be dismissed without an enquiry, he would be right, because the conduct of employee complained against is that of accepting bribe and that conduct has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. In this case the conduct of committing forgery was distinct from the conduct of committing contempt and the former was never the subject-matter of any charge or conviction. If the dismissal had been only for commission of contempt of Court the order may not be assailable, but, that is not the case. It follows that Rule 15 was, in any case, attracted since one of the grounds of dismissal was commission of forgery. No such opportunity having been given the order based on the said two grounds must be held to be illegal. Faced with this situation, Mr. Parkash Narain submitted that word "conviction" in rule 18 (1) must be given a wide interpretation and since the High Court found that the appellant had committed forgery it was a conviction for forgery within the meaning of Rule 18 (1 ). I am afraid, I do not agree. The fact that the Court observed in considering the sentence to be awarded that the appellant had committed forgery cannot be said to be a conviction on a criminal charge. In this view, the appeal must succeed and the dismissal order set aside. There will be no order as to costs. It would, however, be open to the authorities concerned to take such fresh action as they may deem proper.