Bombay High Court Considers Whether Removal of Driver Under Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Rules Based Solely on Conviction for Incident Outside Service Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Proportionality. The Court found that disciplinary authority must consider circumstances and that conduct leading to conviction must constitute misconduct under service rules, not merely a conviction, to warrant removal.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of removal from service passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, and confirmed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the conduct leading to conviction under Section 304A IPC warranted removal without conducting a departmental inquiry.

The legal heirs sought setting aside of the impugned orders, reinstatement with consequential benefits till the date of superannuation, and release of all post-retirement benefits.

The deceased employee was removed from service solely on the basis of his conviction for causing death by negligence while driving a private tractor in a personal capacity, without giving him an opportunity to be heard or considering the proportionality of the penalty, in alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur passed order dated 30.12.1991 removing the petitioner from service under the mistaken reference to the 1979 Rules. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dismissed the appeal and upheld the order.

Whether the disciplinary authority could invoke Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules to remove the employee without a departmental inquiry under Rules 6, 7, and 8, based solely on a criminal conviction that did not relate to official duties. Whether the conduct of the employee leading to the conviction (private accident while driving a tractor) constituted misconduct within the meaning of the service rules. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct. Whether the wrong mention of the applicable rules vitiated the removal order.

Petitioners contended that the accident had no bearing on the performance of official duties and therefore could not be considered misconduct under the 1964 Rules; Rule 9 could only be invoked when misconduct is established under Rules 6-8; the disciplinary authority failed to consider the circumstances of the case as required by the word 'consider' in Rule 9; the obligation to consider necessarily implies a duty to hear the employee before imposing punishment; the removal was shockingly disproportionate for an isolated incident, violating Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution; reliance placed on T.R. Chellappan, Om Prakash, Shankar Das, and other precedents. Respondents argued that the conviction for a serious offence involving driving was sufficient reason for removal; the word 'may' in Rule 9 gave discretion to the authority; the conduct directly impacted the employment as the employee was a driver; wrong mention of the rule was not fatal since the provisions were identical; the employee was not entitled to any opportunity of hearing under the rule as per Satish Raikwar; reliance placed on Madhosingh Daulatsingh to argue that conduct need not arise in the course of employment to warrant disciplinary action.

Under Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case and cannot automatically impose a penalty based solely on conviction; the word 'consider' requires hearing the employee and objectively determining the matter; the conduct leading to conviction must itself constitute misconduct under the service rules to attract disciplinary action; and the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the conduct, not just the conviction, with due regard to all facts.

In Shankar Das .vrs. Union of India and another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has while considering the provisions of Article 311 (2) observed in paragraph no.7 that the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in noparking area should be dismissed from service. the word 'consider' has been used in contradistinction to the word 'determine'. when the issue is of punishment upon an employee, the disciplinary authority has to consider entire circumstances of the case in order to decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed. The matter can be objectively determined only after delinquent employee is heard and is given chance to satisfy the authority regarding final orders that may be passed by the said authority.

12.04.1991: Accident occurred while the petitioner was driving a private tractor; Crime No.37/1991 registered under Section 304A IPC. The petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek. 30.12.1991: The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur passed an order removing the petitioner from service with reference to Rule 13(1) of the 1979 Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 13 of the 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, which was dismissed. 1994: Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1994 was filed in the High Court. 03.01.2008: The original petitioner Champalal died; his legal heirs were brought on record. 28/29.08.2012: The High Court heard and delivered oral judgment.

• Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964: Rule 9, Rule 13, Rule 6, Rule 7, Rule 8
• Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979: Rule 13(1)
• Indian Penal Code: Section 304A
• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 311(2)(a), Article 309
• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 4