Justice Vivek Singh Thakur in a petition challenging the office order for removal of service observed that an employee can be penalized without inquiry if convicted and sentenced, but it does not mean that every conviction means the automatic removal of the convicted employee.
Brief Facts:
The present petition challenges an Office Order which directs the removal of his service as a driver for the Bajinath Unit of the Respondents.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner had been sentenced for the same offence once, thus making his removal from the service an arbitrary and unjustified action and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that conviction in a criminal case does not automatically lead to dismissal from service and that the petitioner has a right to continue his job.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action of removing the petitioner from the service was justified under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which state that an employer is well within his rights to remove an employee from service if found to be convicted and sentenced.
Observations of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court referred to Union of India Vs. P.D. Yadav, (2002) and observed that a previous sentence for an offense does not exempt an employee from penalties imposed by the employer under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules. However, the court clarified that Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules provide for the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an employee without conducting an enquiry in case of conviction on criminal charges, but this should not be an automatic process. The competent authority has to consider several factors before taking a decision, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the impact of the conviction on the employee's service, and the employee's suitability for service after the conviction.
The court further highlighted that the competent authority should also consider whether the employee's conduct warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. The provisions not only allow for dismissal or removal from service but also provide for a reduction in rank, giving the competent authority discretion to impose an appropriate penalty. The court also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available to challenge his removal order and urged him to exhaust that remedy before approaching the court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the court also noted that it is not restricted from entertaining a petition under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances where the alternative remedy is not sufficient.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was disposed of by the High Court as no exceptional circumstance was made out by the petitioner due to which alternate statutory remedy had not been exhausted. The Court did not decide the matter on the basis of merits and allowed for liberty to approach the Appellate Authority through a fresh appeal if the petitioner preferred to do so.
Case Title: Mohinder Singh vs The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Coram: Honourable Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Case No.: CWPOA No. 6429 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner:Ms. Reeta Hingmang
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. Raman Jamalta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
