Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 460 of 1980, decided on 14th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12‑2‑1979 in Case No. 110 of 1978).

---R. 7.3 read with Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 9(a) ‑ Removal from service‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced under S. 161., P. P. C. read with S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), given benefit of doubt and acquitted by High Court in appeal‑Whether r. 7.3(a) of C. S. R. (Punjab), Vol. 1, Part 1 could be pressed into service by Department for upholding removal from service‑Question raised purely of law and its application to facts of case requiring authoritative interpretation‑‑Leave to appeal granted.‑[Civil service].

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing :14th December, 1980.

‑The petitioner, formerly an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 15‑2‑1979 by which his appeal against removal from service was dismissed.

2. A trap was laid and the petitioner apprehended on 28‑2‑1974 when ‑ a case was registered against him under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption. Act. He was tried by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, convicted and sentenced on 1‑9‑1976. The sentence imposed was one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 3,000 or in default, to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court. On his apprehension after the raid he was suspended from service and was first served with a show cause notice in the matter of sanction for prosecution. After his conviction was recorded by the Special Judge be was served with a show‑cause notice against his dismissal from service. He submitted his reply and while his appeal against conviction and sentence was pending in the High Court the Board of Revenue by an order dated 11‑4‑1977 removed him from service. The finding recorded by the Member, Board of Revenue, was to the following effect: "

Although he has filed an appeal against his conviction before the High Court and the outcome of this appeal is not yet known, the departmental action against him does not have to be stayed until the decision on his appeal becomes available. The High Court has not granted any stay order against the execution of the sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption and there also appears to be no prima facie reason to believe the counter‑allegations made by the accused official against the complainant."

He preferred an appeal against the order of removal passed by the Member, Board of Revenue which was considered by the Full Board after he had been given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the High Court in appeal on 13‑6‑1977. His departmental appeal was decided by the Full Board on 4‑2‑1978. The appeal was found to be time barred and the finding with regard to the merits of the appeal was as follows:-

"It is thus clear teat the appellant has not been acquitted honourably. Besides, he has got a very bad service record. A large number of adverse entries have been recorded in his character‑roll by the officers under whom the appellant has worked. His integrity has all along been considered doubtful and there have been serious allegations of corrup tion against him. This being the position no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the learned Senior Member."

4. The Service Tribunal examined whether the acquittal was honourable or not and applied rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules Punjab, Vol. I, Part I, which deals with pay for the period of suspension when an official is not honourably acquitted and found that as the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable the departmental orders could not be interfered with.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the penalty of removal from service could not be imposed on the petitioner under rule 9(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules which it appears was invoked for the purpose. It reads as follows :‑

Nothing in these rules shall apply to a case where the accused is dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to a sentence of fine or of imprisonment."

Failing the applicability of rule 9(a) the inquiry as required under the provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, had to be held and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The conviction and sentence having been set aside rule 9(a) was not available for inflicting the penalty. It is contended by the learned counsel that recourse to rule 7.3(a) of the C. S. R. Punjab; Vol. I, Part I, for upholding removal was quite out of place for it dealt with the grant of pay for the period of suspension making it dependant on the acquittal being honourable.

5. We find that the questions raised being purely of law, and its application to the facts of the case require authoritative interpretation. Leave is, therefore, granted. Security Rs. 1.000 as the petitioner has been out o service. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to fill additional documents, if any

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.