Even After Employee's Conviction, Conduct Leading To That Conviction Must Be Considered Before Any Dismissal Or Removal From Service- Allahabad HC

An Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari has reiterated that even after an employee’s conviction, the conduct leading to that conviction must be considered before any dismissal or removal from service.

In that context, the Court placed reliance on the case of Sadananad Mishra vs State of UP, and it was said that, "on conviction of an employee of a criminal charge, the order of punishment cannot be passed unless the conduct which has led to his conviction, is also considered. It was further held that the scrutiny or exercise 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 concerned".

Counsel Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma and Counsel Ramesh Kumar Srivastava appeared for the petitioner, while CSC Savitra Vardhan Singh appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2009 in a criminal case. Subsequently, on August 30, 2014, he received a dismissal order from his job, citing only his conviction as the reason for termination. However, the dismissal did not take into account the petitioner's conduct, which is required by Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. In his appeal, the petitioner argued that his behavior should have been considered alongside his conviction before issuing the dismissal order. This argument is based on Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution.

The appellate order, issued on May 13, 2015, partially favored the petitioner by directing the payment of his provident fund (GPF) amount. However, it withheld other post-retiral benefits until the final resolution of the petitioner's criminal appeal.

On hearing the submissions, the High Court, the Court observed that, "there is no consideration of the conduct of the petitioner, therefore, impugned dismissal order dated 30.08.2014 is bad and liable to be set aside."

The Court also held that under Article 300(A) of the Indian Constitution, pension and other post retiral benefits are not bounty, but a property and cannot be taken away without provision of law. In that context, the Court held that, "Once, the first impugned order dated 30.08.2014 is not sustainable, order of Appellate Authority dated 13.05.2015 is also having no force in light of observation made earlier and is liable to be set aside."

Subsequently, the Court directed the respondents to pay the post retiral dues to petitioner including pension and other dues permissible under the law within three months.

Cause Title: Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs State of UP

Click here to read/download the Judgment