लखनऊ : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने एक महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय में कहा है कि आपराधिक मामले में दोष सिद्ध होना ही किसी व्यक्ति को नौकरी से बर्खास्त किए जाने का आधार नहीं हो सकता।
बीते चार दिसंबर को सुनाए गए फैसले में न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी को कोर्ट से दोष सिद्ध करार दिए गए कर्मचारी पर कार्रवाई के लिए लिखित आदेश पारित करना होगा। न्यायमूर्ति राजन रॉय की एकल सदस्यीय पीठ ने निर्णय में आगे कहा है कि यह भी आवश्यक है कि अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी दोष सिद्ध ठहराए गए उस कर्मचारी के उस आचरण पर विचार करेगा जिसकी वजह से वह दोष सिद्ध करार दिया गया है।
राष्ट्रीय बचत निदेशालय में राज्य सरकार के अधीन सांख्यिकीय सहायक के पद पर तैनात रहे दयाराम की याचिका पर न्यायालय ने यह फैसला सुनाया। याचिका में कहा गया था कि याची 24 अप्रैल 2009 को निचली अदालत से गैर इरादतन हत्या और अनलॉफुल असेंबली के आरोप में दोष सिद्ध किया जा चुका है। उसने इस आदेश के विरुद्ध अपील की है जो विचाराधीन है और उसे जमानत पर रिहा किया जा चुका है।
अदालत द्वारा उसे दोष सिद्ध ठहराने के बाद 18 मई 2009 को बचत निदेशालय के अपर निदेशक ने एक आदेश जारी करते हुए याची को बर्खास्त कर दिया। न्यायालय ने कहा कि ऐसा प्रकट होता है कि याची को मात्र दोष सिद्ध होने पर ही यह आदेश जारी कर दिया गया जबकि स्पष्ट नियम है कि मात्र दोष सिद्धि किसी व्यक्ति को नौकरी से बर्खास्त किए जाने का आधार नहीं हो सकती। न्यायालय ने इस संबंध में शीर्ष अदालत के एक आदेश का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि फैसले में दिए गए आधार पर अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी मामले पर निर्णय लें। इसके साथ ही याची को उसका कार्यभार सौंप दिया जाए। हालांकि न्यायालय ने बर्खास्तगी के दौरान के वेतन-भत्ताें केप्रश्न पर कहा कि यह अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी के नए निर्णय पर निर्भर करेगा और निर्णय देने से पूर्व याची को इसका भुगतान नहीं किया जाएगा।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 10
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5907 of 2009
Petitioner :- Daya Ram
Respondent :- State Of U P Thr.Prin.Secy.Finance Ex Offico Director
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhruv Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was employed as Statistical Assistant in the National Savings Directorate under the State Government. He was involved in a criminal case under Section 304 Part-I/149 I.P.C. wherein after trial he was convicted by the Court of criminal jurisdiction on 24.04.2009. His appeal against the same is pending wherein he has been enlarged on bail.
Consequent to his conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Additional Director Savings, U.P.
On a perusal of the order of dismissal it is revealed that the same has been passed mechanically merely on the ground of conviction. The legal position is very well settled that a conviction does not automatically lead to dismissal, removal, reduction in rank etc. The Disciplinary Authority has to pass an order in this regard in writing. It is required to consider the conduct which has led to his conviction and based on such consideration of conduct a final opinion has to be formed as to whether any punishment is required to be imposed upon him or not. This is the requirement under Article 311 (2) of the Proviso as also Proviso (i) of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985(3) SCC 398 which still holds the ground. In the case of Tulsi Ram Patel (Supra), the Supreme Court observed and held as under:-
"Not much remains to be said about clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2). To recapitulate briefly, where a disciplinary authority comes to know that a government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose it will have to peruse the judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the various factors set out in Challappan's case. This, however, has to be done by it ex parte and by itself. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the government servant's conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank he must decide which of these three penalties should be imposed on him. This too it has to do by itself and without hearing the concerned government servant by reason of the exclusionary effect of the second proviso. The disciplinary authority must, however, bear in mind that a conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the concerned government servant. Having decided which of these three penalties is required to be imposed, he has to pass the requisite order. A government servant who is aggrieved by the penalty imposed can agitate in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, that the penalty was too severe or excessive and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. If it is his case that he is not the government servant who has been in fact convicted, he can also agitate this question in appeal, revision or review. If he fails in all the departmental remedies and still wants to pursue the matter, he can invoke the court's power of judicial review subject to the court permitting it. If the court finds that he was not in fact the person convicted, it will strike down the impugned order and order him to be reinstated in service. Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus, in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, this Court set aside the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Officer, Southern Railway and another Vs. T. R. Challappan, 1976 (1) SCR 783, has held that on the conviction of an employee on a criminal charge, the order of punishment cannot be passed unless the conduct which had led to his conviction is also considered. The scrutiny or examination of conduct of an employee leading to his conviction is to be done ex-parte and an opportunity of hearing is not to be provided for this purpose to the employee.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 18.05.2009 can not be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed, however, with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to take afresh decision keeping in mind the legal position narrated herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Consequences shall follow as per law.
However, the question of arrears and salary etc. shall depend upon the fresh decision which is to be taken as aforesaid and shall not be paid till the such decision though the petitioner shall be allowed to join and discharge the duties as aforesaid and shall be paid the current salary.
The petitioner shall submit a copy of the judgment of the Court of criminal jurisdiction convicting him as also the appeal filed by him before the Disciplinary Authority, to facilitate the decision as aforesaid.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 4.12.2015