N. N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the Union of India being aggrieved by the concurrent decision of the two courts below. The plaintiff had come to the court on the allegations that the order dated March 31, 1973 compulsorily retiring him from service with retrospective effect from 20th January, 1973 was illegal and ultra vires.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent who happens to be sweeper by caste was working as Mali in the Horticulture Department (Archeological Survey of India) and was later on promoted as Assistant Foreman. While he was so posted at Etmad- ud- daula, Agra he got involved in a criminal case under Section 323/325 IPC and was convicted. THE conviction was upheld by the High Court although the period of imprisonment was reduced to the one already undergone. On the basis of this conviction and without any thing more the plaintiff was retired from service compulsorily under Rule 19 Central Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules. Both the courts below have concluded that a mere conviction of a Government employee cannot be the basis of compulsory retirement of an employee unless the conduct resulting in his conviction was relatable to his misconduct as an employee. Sri K. C Sinha, learned Standing Counsel has tried to urge before me that on a true interpretation of rule 19 the conduct of the employee need not necessarily be referable to his misconduct as a Government servant. He has, however, conveniently omitted to refer to Rules 14 to 18. In fact disciplinary proceedings against an employee are to be taken for any alleged misconduct or misbehaviour in connection with his employment and an elaborate procedure has been prescribed in rules 14 to 18 for an enquiry against any such delinquent employee. Rule 19, however, makes an exception to these rules under which a shorter and summary procedure is provided for compulsorily retiring an employee who already stands convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence that also amounts to misconduct or misbehaviour under rules 14 to 18. The word 'conduct' can only be read with reference to employees conduct in Rule 14 There is sound public administrative policy behind this ; once a person has been found guilty of an offence which amounts to misconduct or misbehaviour under Rule 14 it would be futile to tread over the same ground and hold another full scale disciplinary proceedings under rules 14 to 18. Besides insistence on such a course of action would, apart from resulting in loss of valuable time and expense, leave the possibility of a contradictory finding wide open which, in the face of pre-existing decision of the court, must always be avoided and discouraged. The next contention of the State must be rejected or else even a convictions for a minor or trivial offence, say a traffic violation, may prompt the authorities to retire an employee compulsorily. This could never have been the intention of the legislature while arming the executive with such summary powers The only sound interpretation of Rule 19,, therefore, can be that only such convictions of an employee can be visited by an adverse action against him for compulsory retirement which related to his conduct coming within the meaning of the term 'misconduct or misbehaviour' as used in Rule 14.
(3.) REFERENCE was made to 198,1 AWC 385 (FB) (Maqsoodan Pathak v. Security Officer) where a Full Bench of this court was dealing with rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules which is almost in similar language as Rule 19, now under consideration. In that case, however, action bad been taken against the employee for compulsory retirement under rule 19 (2) without having recourse to a regular enquiry even though the employee had not been previously convicted by any court. In those circumstances, as rightly held by the Bench, a full enquiry could not have been by-passed The situation in the present case is different. The delinquent employee was compulsorily retired from service merely on the basis of his conviction without taking into consideration whether the offence for which he had been convicted related to his mis-conduct or misbehaviour as an employee. It is now well established that before any action can be taken under this sub-rule, the conduct of the employee resulting in his conviction must be referable to his 'conduct' (mis-conduct or mis-behaviour) as a Government employee (See: 1975 Labour & Industrial Cases, 1732 and 1973 Punjab & Haryana,). The impugned order does not indicate that the quarrel involving the respondent near his residence had any relation with such misconduct or misbehaviour. The incident took place far away from the place of his employment and was wholly unconnected with his duties under the Government. In the circumstances, the order of compulsory retirement was bad and not In consonance with Rule 19. In the result the appeal has no merit an is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.;