- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri R. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was a police Constable at Shahjahanpur, seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated llth October, 1994, a copy where of is Annexure T to the petition, whereby he has been dismissed from service following his conviction under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Trial No. 380 of 1992 leading to life sentence vide judgment and order dated 17th December, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad for following two reasons :- (a) because neither there was any inquiry held nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of being heard, and (b) because sentence of the petitioner having been suspended by this court vide its order dated 20th September, 1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2230 of 1993, Ram Babu and others v. State, a photo copy whereof is Annexure '4' to the petition, the Senior Superin tendent of Police, Saharanpur could not order the dismissal of the petitioner. Both the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of substance and have ought to be rejected.
(3.) RELYING upon the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner was "in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. " It is true that an inquiry, information of charges and giving of reasonable opportunity of being heard to a person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State before dismissal or removal is guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. But while making the submission the learned counsel lost sight of the provisions con tained in clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India provides that clause (2) will not apply where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. It cannot be gainsaid that the dismissal of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charges under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The constitutional guarantee envisaged in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was, therefore, not available to to petitioner.;