Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri P.K. Veerabhadra, was an employee of the Tobacco Board (a Government of India undertaking) working as a Field Officer. A charge sheet dated 27.01.2009 was issued to him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules), alleging that while working as Senior Grading Officer and Incharge Auction Superintendent at Tobacco Board Auction Platform No.61, Kamplapura, during 2008, he failed to discharge his duty properly, resulting in investment of funds of Rs. 3.50 crores in banks by Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, Assistant Manager (Accounts), and that he signed three cheques misusing his official position, facilitating transfer of Rs. 6,08,057/- to the personal account of Sri K. Hanumantha Rao. The CBI, Bangalore investigated the matter and filed a case (C.C.No.138/2010, R.C.No.11/2009). The XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, on 01.12.2011, convicted Sri K. Hanumantha Rao and the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed separate sentences. The CBI informed the Tobacco Board about the conviction. Thereafter, the 1st respondent (Tobacco Board) issued a memorandum dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure-A) dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 19 of the Rules, without holding a disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner challenged this dismissal order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The main legal issue was whether the dismissal under Rule 19, based solely on the criminal conviction, was valid. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind independently and that the dismissal was mechanical. The respondents contended that Rule 19 permits dismissal without inquiry upon conviction. The High Court analyzed Rule 19 and held that while it dispenses with the requirement of a full disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary authority must still be satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry, and such satisfaction must be based on relevant material. The court found that the impugned order did not reflect any such satisfaction or consideration of the facts and circumstances. The court quashed the dismissal order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, but left it open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, including holding a disciplinary inquiry if deemed fit.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Disciplinary Authority's Satisfaction - The petitioner, an employee of the Tobacco Board, was dismissed from service under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, following his conviction by a Special Judge for CBI cases for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority must independently apply its mind and be satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry, and that mere conviction does not automatically justify dismissal without inquiry. The impugned order was quashed as the authority did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Opportunity of Hearing - The court observed that while Rule 19 dispenses with the requirement of a full disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary authority must still consider the nature of the offence, the conduct of the employee, and the impact on the organization. The order of dismissal was set aside as it was passed mechanically without such consideration. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, based solely on his conviction by a criminal court, without holding a disciplinary inquiry, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned memorandum dated 09.07.2013, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. However, it left it open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, including holding a disciplinary inquiry if deemed fit.
Law Points
- Dismissal without disciplinary inquiry under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules
- 1965 is permissible only if the disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry
- but such satisfaction must be based on relevant material and not be arbitrary
- conviction by criminal court does not automatically justify dismissal without inquiry
- the disciplinary authority must consider the nature of the offence
- the conduct of the employee
- and the impact on the organization before imposing penalty.
