- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 10725/2003 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the Respondent herein was allegedly involved along with certain other employees of the Public Service Commission of Andhra Pradesh in leakage of question papers and selling the same for profit. Thus, the case was registered against them in Crime No. 28 of 1985 at Chilakuripet Police Station. In view thereof, the authorities put the Respondent under suspension vide order dated 4.5.1985 and as the criminal proceeding remained pending for a long time, he was reinstated vide order dated 18.11.1993. However, the Respondent stood convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 381, 411, 414, 420 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2000. The services of the Respondent were terminated vide order dated 6.12.2000.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the appeal preferred by the Respondent against his conviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court but the Revisional Court i.e., the High Court has set aside his conviction vide judgment and order dated 8.7.2003. The Respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was held by the Tribunal that as no disciplinary proceedings had ever been taken against the Respondent under the Disciplinary and Appellate rules and his termination was based solely and exclusively on his conviction and as the conviction stood washed off, the termination order was liable to be set aside. However, considering the fact that for a long time, the Respondent had not been working, his application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2003. The learned Tribunal directed the Appellant to reinstate the Respondent, however, he was held not entitled for any back wages. The said order has been affirmed by the High court.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the legal position is crystal clear that in case the termination is based exclusively on conviction by the criminal Court and no departmental proceeding had ever been initiated against the delinquent and in case the conviction is set aside, the punishment order/termination order also becomes liable to be set aside. In the instant case, admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings had ever been conducted against the Respondent. Thus, we do not find any fault with the impugned order. Even otherwise, the Respondent has already reached the stage of superannuation and at this stage it will not be possible for the Appellant to hold an inquiry on the said charges. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.;