AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The petitioner, in these proceedings, impugns an order dated 23.07.2003 dismissing him from the services in terms of Regulation 9(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations 1959.
A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner, alleging receipt of illegal gratification. He was placed under suspension on 15.07.1994 by the respondent.
The FIR led to investigation and framing of charges before the Special Judge, Delhi under provisions of Section 7 read with 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The complaint was that the petitioner had accepted an amount of Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification.
The petitioner stood trial and by judgment and order dated 21.11.2002 was convicted by the Special Judge. He appealed to this Court; during pendency of the appeal, on 19.12.2002, this Court suspended his sentence.
The MCD which had placed the petitioner''s services under suspension during the pendency of trial, issued a show cause notice on 02.04.2003. The said show cause notice, inter alia, reads as follows :-
"Whereas Shri Lakhi Ram, Inspector, was convicted by the Hon''ble Court of Shri P.K. Bhasin, Spl. Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 21.11.2002 u/s 7/13 POC Act and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years with a fine of Rs. 5000 u/s 7 of PC Act, in default, further RI for six months and the same punishment has also been awarded to him for his conviction u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the POC Act vide orders dated 21.11.2002. Both the substantive sentences shall, however, run concurrently, while sentences in case of non-payment of fine will run one after the other.
Whereas Addl. Commissioner -(r) the Competent Authority after examining the records particularly the conduct of Shri Lakhi Ram, UDC/FI leading to his conviction in the said criminal case has proposed to impose upon Shri Lakhi Ram, Inspector, the penalty of ''Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment by invoking Regulation 9(1) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959, vide his orders dated 25.03.2003 as reproduced below:
"I have gone through the facts pertaining to Shri Lakhi Ram S/o Shri Mangla Singh, Factory Licensing Inspector who is involved in case FIR No.14/94 u/s 7/13 POC Act for accepting and obtaining Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant in consideration to sanction him 1 KW power to run a household factory.
As per the judgment pronounced by the Hon''ble Court of Shri P.K. Bhasin, Spl. Judge Delhi, dated 18.11.2002, Shri Lakhi Ram has been convicted u/s 7/13 POC Act and sentenced to undergo R1 for a period of 2 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 7 of PC Act, in default, further R1 for six months and the same punishment has also been awarded to him for his conviction u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the POC Act vide orders dated 21.11.2002.
Since Shri Lakhi Ram, Factory Licensing Inspector has been convicted in case of bribe by the Court of Law, I propose to impose upon Shri Lakhi Ram, Factory Licensing Inspector the penalty of ''Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment'' by invoking Regulation 9(1) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959".
Now, Therefore, Shri Lakhi Ram, Inspector is hereby given an opportunity to make representation as he may wish to make against the aforesaid orders as to why the same may not be inflicted upon him. He may do so in writing within 15 days of the receipt of this letter, failing which, it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say against the proposed penalty and the case will be placed before the Disciplinary Authority for taking final decision in the matter."
The petitioner replied to the notice on 09.04.2003. Eventually, by impugned order dated 23rd July 2003, the MCD dismissed him from the services. The relevant part of that order reads as follows :-
"Whereas Addl. Commissioner -(r) the Competent Authority after examining the records particularly the conduct of Shri Lakhi Ram, UDC/FI leading to his conviction in the said criminal case has proposed to impose upon Shri Lakhi Ram, Inspector, the penalty of ''Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment'' by invoking Regulation 9(1) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959, vide his orders dated 26.03.2003. Accordingly, a show cause notice bearing No. 106/SIO(P)/Vig./94/1935 dated 2.4.2003 was issued and served upon Shri Lakhi Ram S/o Shri Mangla Singh, Inspector, Factory Licensing Department, MCD, to which, he has submitted his reply.
AND
Now, Therefore, Addl. Commissioner -(r) the Competent Authority after considering the reply submitted by Shri Lakhi Ram, Factory Lic. Ins. To the show cause notice and examining the record of the case in its entirety, has finally, confirmed the proposed penalty of '' Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment'' upon Shri Lakhi Ram, Factory Licensing Inspector vide his orders dated 9.7.2003 as reproduced below :-
"A show cause memo bearing NO. 1065/SIO(P)/Vig./94/1935 dated 2.4.2003 was issued and served upon Shri Lakhi Ram S/o Shri Mangla Singh, Inspector, Factory Licensing Department vide which he was given an opportunity to make such representation as may wish to make against the proposed penalty of Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment by invoking Regulation 9(1) of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959, within 15 days of the receipt of the said memo.
Shri Lakhi Ram made a representation dated 9.4.2003 in reply to the said memo which is placed in the file. He has accepted in his representation that he was convicted u/s 7/13 POC Act vide orders dated 27.11.2002. He has also mentioned that he had filed an appeal against the said order in the High Court of Delhi and the Hon''ble Justice Shri R.C. Chopra had suspended his conviction during the Pendency of the appeal.
I have gone through the entire record and as suggested by Director of Vigilance vide his notice dated 3.7.2003 that there is no bar for taking a final decision in the case, hereby confirm the proposed penalty."
This is issued and notified for information and necessary action by all concerned."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal since the petitioner''s sentence has been suspended during pendency of his appeal before this Court. It is Therefore submitted that the dismissal from services is unjustified and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, relied upon the terms of Regulation 9(1) which reads as follows :-
"9. Special Procedure in certain cases "Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 8:
(i) Where a municipal officer of other municipal employee is removed a dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charge; or
(ii) Where the authority empowered to remove or dismiss an officer or other employee is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in these regulations; the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. "
It was submitted that with the conviction of the petitioner, the MCD was within its right to take action on that ground, for passing the dismissal order. Reliance was placed upon the non-obstante clause in Rule 9 to say that it prescribes a special procedure which requires the authorities to consider all the materials including the judgment of the Criminal Court. It was submitted that no formal enquiry is contemplated.
I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary. It is based upon the special procedure prescribed u/s 9(1) of the Regulations. That Regulation has not been challenged in these proceedings. It is settled law that in absence of challenge to a statutory provision, the consequences logically flowing from it, which is otherwise permissible and in accordance with law, cannot be treated as illegal. In this case, the petitioner was admittedly convicted on 1.11.2002. The fact that his sentence of suspension been suspended is one factor, but not a conclusive circumstance. His conviction remains as a matter on record. Till set aside, or otherwise interfered with in accordance with law, the MCD had power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in terms of Regulation 9(1).
In view of the above observations, no relief can be granted in these proceedings. It is however clarified that in the event the petitioner is acquitted and the conviction is interfered with or set aside , the MCD shall take appropriate action in the matter of his reinstatement upon being intimated in that regard, and shall pass consequential orders.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed subject to above observations. No costs.