Talari Pullaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1027 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.4176 OF 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking the following relief:-

"......to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned

G.O.Ms.No.366, Revenue (Vigilance.III) Department, dated

03.12.2013 issued by the 1st respondent whereby the petitioner

was dismissed from service in consequence to the conviction

recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB

Cases, Kurnool in C.No.9 of 2018, dated 29.10.2020 against

which the Criminal Appeal is pending and the judgment was

suspended, and the petitioner is enlarged on bail, even before

coming to logical end, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation

of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in

violating of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India

and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order."

2. The contention of the petitioner in nutshell is that the

petitioner was discharging his duties as Village Revenue Officer at

Madhavaram village for the past 28 years to the satisfaction of one

and all without there being any adverse remarks from anybody.

On a complaint alleged to have been lodged by one

M.Lakshminarayana alleging that the petitioner demanded bribe

of Rs.10,000/- for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of

successors along with him and three others with the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kurnool Range. Thereafter, trap

proceedings against the petitioner were initiated and that the said

M.Lakshminarayana has given signal, handed over the said bribe

amount of Rs.10,000/- though the said amount was kept in a

rack of petitioner's house by M.Lakshminarayana. They proceeded

with the investigation and charge sheet was filed before the

learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool in

C.C.No.9 of 2018, dated 29.10.2020. The Trial Court after

completion of trial found the accused guilty for various offences,

convicted and sentenced him.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction sentence in C.C.No.09 of 2018

the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.508 of 2020, same

was admitted and the substantive sentence of imprisonment is

suspended on payment of fine vide orders in I.A.No.1/2020,

thereby removed the petitioner from service under the impugned

order is illegal and arbitrary since the criminal proceedings are

not yet finalized and only in case of culmination of criminal

proceedings the respondents can take action by invoking Rule 25

of CCA Rules. But, at this stage invoking such rule terminating

the services of the petitioner is illegal and requested to issue a

direction to the respondents as claimed.

4. During hearing, Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while

contending that in case the criminal proceedings are culminated

in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will be put to serious loss

and termination order will obstruct him to rejoin in his duties,

thereby passing such order of termination impugned in the writ

petition instead of placing the petitioner under suspension is an

illegality and excessive jurisdiction invoking Rule 25 of the CCA

Rules and requested to set aside the same.

5. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-I

supported the impugned order in total. Admittedly, the Calendar

Case against the petitioner was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and he was tried for the above charges,

found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2)

and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted

him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) and

13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in default of

payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo imprisonment for a

period of three months under each count. Both the substantive

sentences of imprisonment imposed against the accused shall run

concurrently and set off remand period.

6. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed

against this petitioner, criminal appeal is preferred by the

petitioner in Crl.A.No.508 of 2020. Vide order in I.A.No.01/2021

this court taking into consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case of petitioner suspended the substantive

sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner till disposal of the

Criminal Appeal on execution of a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- with

two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of Special Judge,

for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

7. Thus, the substantive sentence alone is suspended and not

the conviction. Conviction can be suspended only when such

failure leads to irreversible consequences. But, in the present case

in case the conviction and sentence is set aside, the petitioner is

entitled to get reinstatement in the office, thereby the question of

attracting irreversible consequences does not arise. Therefore, the

appellate Court suspended only the substantive sentence of

imprisonment and not the conviction, thus, the petitioner is found

guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections

7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. According to Rule 25 of CCA Rules, where penalty is

imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct

which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(Misconduct leads to a penalty imposed as per 1st proviso under

Rule 9(ix) of these rules. By these rules services of such person

can be terminated. Apart from misconduct that is committed

during the course of the employment, conduct which as led to the

conviction by a Criminal Court of an employee is also actionable.

The rationale behind this is that Government employees who man

the administration should be above board in the private life also

in order to create confidence both in the administration and in the

general public that they are capable of performing their functions

in a just manner. If a person who has a criminal mind is retained

in the administration, it is not only a loss to the administration

but brings down the reputation of the administration in the

estimation of general public. But it should be borne in mind that

sometimes Government servants unwittingly involve themselves

and are convicted on technical grounds and this happens in the

normal life of everybody and it is not the intention that such

convictions should be taken cognizance of, for initiating

disciplinary action. With such reasonable exceptions it can be

said that the conduct which has led a Government servant to

conviction by a Criminal Court exposes the Government servant to

punishment under the rules without any enquiry. Therefore, this

rule is an exception to Rules 20 and 21 of CCA Rules. But, at the

same time while taking action under this rule, the gravity of

misconduct is considered.

9. In the present circumstances of the case, the criminal

proceedings are not culminated and the criminal appeal is

pending before the competent Court. Therefore, taking into

consideration of gravity of the misconduct i.e., involvement in a

crime for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) and

13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is grave in nature.

10. Hence, the disciplinary authority rightly terminated the

services of the petitioner as a measure of punishment exercising

power under Rule 25 of CCA Rules. However, in case the

conviction is reversed or set aside by the Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.508 of 2020 it will cause serious loss to the petitioner.

11. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the case, the petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation

to the concerned authority in case the conviction and sentence are

set aside in Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.508 of 2020 and the

authority concerned shall take appropriate action and pass

appropriate order on such representation within three (03) weeks

from the date of such representation made by the petitioner, in

the event of setting aside conviction and sentence passed by the

Court below by the appellate Court.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, at the stage of

admission itself. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 22.02.2021

IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.4176 OF 2021

Date: 22.02.2021

IS