Kishan Pilley and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P/1), whereby petitioner is dismissed from service by the respondents because he was convicted by the trial Court in Case No.407/2001 on 17.04.2006 for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Petitioner was directed to undergo life imprisonment and was further directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.

Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that impugned order does not contain any reasons as to why requirement to conduct inquiry is dispensed with. He submits that impugned order runs contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of [ Union of India vs. Tusliram Patel ] reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416.

Mr. Pradeep Sahu, learned P.L. for the State supported the order and submits that order impugned is in consonance with Article 311 of the Constitution read with Section 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1966.

No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules permits the disciplinary authority to impose punishment on the basis of judgments of Court of competent jurisdiction. It is the conduct of the delinquent employee which led to conviction, which will decide the question of quantum of punishment. In Tusliram Patel (Supra) the Constitutional Bench opined that after conviction in serious crime, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the employee before imposition of punishment. The said decision must be taken ex-parte. It is apposite to quote the relevant para, which reads as under:

"The consideration under Rule 14 of what penalty should be imposed upon a delinquent railway servant must, therefore, be ex parte and where the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the penalty which the facts and circumstances of the case warrant is either of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, no opportunity of showing cause against such penalty proposed to be imposed upon him can be afforded to the delinquent government servant." [Emphasis Supplied]

The same view is taken by the Full Bench of this Court in 2004 (4) MPLJ 555, [ Laxmi Narayan Hayaran vs. State of M.P. & another ].

As laid down in Tulsiram Patel (Supra) the ultimate punishment imposed can be the subject matter of judicial review before this Court. The Court can interfere if for trivial charges on which conviction is based, employee is inflicted with the disproportionate punishment which shocks the conscience of the Court. In the present case, the petitioner is convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this conduct which led to the conviction was not that serious which invites punishment from dismissal of service. Resultantly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.