N. Panduranga Rao vs Central Bank of India, Hyd.

The petitioner is an employee of respondent Bank. He was charged with an offence u/s 420 IPC and has been convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. He has challenged this judgment by way of an appeal which is pending before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur who has suspended the sentence pending appeal. In the meantime, the department issued a notice to him on 24th August, 1999 asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service in accordance with Regulation 11 of Central Bank of India Officers, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Regulation reads as under:-

"11. Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 6 or Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 the disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 if the Officer employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial.

Provided that the officer employee may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made".

The regulation is para maleria to exception (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. According to this regulation, once a person is convicted for a criminal offence he can be terminated from service. Whether the department is bound to wait for the result of the appeal or not is a question which has to be decided finally by the department. Since the termination of a person from service is defendant on proof of misconduct and Courts have held that even in case of acquittal from criminal cases such persons can be terminated for misconduct, therefore, it may not be appropriate for a department to continue with the services of a person who has already been convicted of a criminal offence."

The facts leading to the conviction of the petitioner are that, he cheated some person and received money from him with a promise to provide him a job in the Bank. Similar matter came up before the Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, . Supreme Court Service Rulings 1950-1996 (Vol.16) Page 245. In this case also the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced, appeal was pending and in the appeal sentence had been suspended. There was a question before the Supreme Court as to whether the Appellate Court can order suspension of sentence and conviction both or only suspend the sentence. But, this question was not specifically answered in view of the mandate of Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. The supreme Court said:

"8. We need not, however, concern ourselves any more with the power of the Appellate Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is the ''conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge'' andthere can be no question of suspending the conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal Court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the Appellate Court or on the ground that the said Government servant-accused has been released on bail pending the appeal".

The Supreme Court further pointed out the advisability of not retaining the persons convicted by the criminal Courts in service. On the other hand, it advised that if such persons succeed in appeals they can always be reinstated. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant which is reproduced.

"10. What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the Government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal Court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other High Court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceedings, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice".

For the reason that the petitioner for all practical purposes is a convict and has been convicted of a criminal charge, the respondents are well within their rights to terminate his services.

I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.