Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education against an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which had quashed a show cause notice issued to a government servant for dismissal based on criminal conviction. The respondent was working as Superintendent in the office of the Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education, Madurai in 1986. Complaints of corruption were received against him. An enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department opined that the charge was true. The respondent was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was that he received Rs.10,000 from one Vijay Kumar promising to secure a job. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000. The respondent appealed to the High Court. On 14.2.1991, the High Court suspended the sentence and released him on bail. On 27.10.1993, the Deputy Director issued a show cause notice stating that because the High Court had only suspended the sentence, the conviction was still in force, and therefore he should show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent challenged this notice before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the notice on the grounds that once the sentence had been suspended by the appellate court, criminal proceedings continued and departmental action could not be taken until disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal also held that there was an unexplained delay of two years eight months in issuing the notice. The main legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution permits departmental action when the sentence is suspended and the accused is on bail, and whether delay vitiates the action. The court examined Article 311(2) and noted that clause (a) speaks of conduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge, not sentence or punishment. The court referred to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that it empowers the appellate court to suspend execution of sentence or order, not conviction. Relying on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Shankardass v. Union of India, the court held that conviction remains operative despite suspension of sentence or bail, and departmental action can be taken immediately upon conviction. The court also found that the delay was explained by the need for legal advice and was not fatal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal order, and gave the respondent four weeks to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, after which the appellant could pass appropriate orders.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Dismissal of Government Servant - Conviction as Ground for Dismissal - Constitution of India, Article 311(2), second proviso clause (a) - Clause (a) provides that a government servant may be dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; the provision refers to conduct leading to conviction, not sentence or punishment; suspension of sentence by appellate court does not affect the conviction or the power to take departmental action - Held that departmental action under clause (a) can be taken even when sentence is suspended and accused released on bail (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Effect on Conviction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 389 - Section 389 empowers the appellate court to suspend execution of sentence or order, not conviction; conviction remains operative unless specifically suspended - Held that suspension of sentence or grant of bail does not erase conviction (Paras 7-8). C) Service Law - Departmental Proceedings - Timing of Action - Constitution of India, Article 311(2), second proviso clause (a) - The appropriate course is to take departmental action immediately upon conviction of a government servant, without waiting for appeal or revision; if the employee is later acquitted, he can be reinstated with full benefits - Held that waiting for appeal is not advisable as it would mean continuing in service a person convicted of serious offence (Para 9). D) Service Law - Delay in Departmental Action - Explanation of Delay - Constitution of India, Article 311(2), second proviso clause (a) - Delay of two years eight months in issuing show cause notice was explained by need for legal advice regarding suspension of sentence; delay found not vitiating - Held that delay not fatal when properly explained (Para 11). E) Administrative Law - Exercise of Power - Fairness and Reasonableness - Constitution of India, Article 311(2), second proviso clause (a) - Power under clause (a) must be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably; not every conviction would justify dismissal - Held that the right to impose penalty carries duty to act justly (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether departmental proceedings under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution can be taken when the appellate court has suspended the sentence and granted bail to the convicted government servant, and whether delay in issuing show cause notice vitiates such action.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside; respondent given four weeks from date of judgment to submit explanation to show cause notice; appellant (Deputy Director) permitted to pass appropriate orders thereafter; no costs.
Law Points
- Conviction remains operative despite suspension of sentence
- Clause (a) of second proviso to Article 311(2) deals with conduct leading to conviction not sentence
- Section 389 CrPC suspends execution of sentence not conviction
- Departmental action can be taken immediately after conviction without waiting for appeal
- Delay in issuing show cause notice not fatal if explained
