MOHINI KAPUR,J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has been convicted by a court of law has been challenged. The petitioner was a teacher Gr.II. On the basis of a first information report lodged against him by his sister -in -law he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - by his judgment passed on 23rd April, 1984. On basis of this conviction, the respondents terminated his services by order dated 30th June, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction made by the Magistrate and this appeal was decided by the Additional Session Judge, Ajmer on 8th November, 1985 and by this decision, the petitioner was acquitted. Thereafter he made several representations before the authorities for his re -instatement but no order was passed even after calling for the certified copy of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, which was submitted by the petitioners.
(2.) THE termination has not only been challenged on the ground that after his acquittal in the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner should be reinstated in service, but also on the ground that termination merely on the basis of conviction by the court of law is not proper as provisions of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA' Rules') have not been complied with. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, they are not in dispute. A written reply has been filed by the respondents in which the acquittal of the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge has been accepted. The only defence appears to be that correspondence is going on with the Government and the Directorate of Education for purposes of passing suitable orders. The first question which arises is whether the order terminating services of the petitioner can be said to be a legally justified order. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that it shall not be necessary to give a person civil servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed where the person is dismissed or removed or reduced rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Hence, holding an inquiry is not necessary a case where the Government Servant has been convicted on a criminal charge. Rule 19 of the CC and A Rules reads as under: 19. Special procedure in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 16, 17 and 18 (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow the procedure. The Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit. Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary. On a reading of Sub -clause (a) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India it is apparent that a penalty of either dismissal or removal or reduction in rank could be passed on the ground of conviction of a civil servant on a criminal charge. This Article deals with these three punishments only hence, they have been referred to in Sub -clause (2) and it can be said that the other lesser penalties can also be imposed on the ground of conviction on a criminal charge. It is not necessary that in every case of conviction by a court of law the Government Servant concerned has to be dismissed from service. Rule 19 of the CC and A Rules also says that the Disciplinary Authority 'may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit.' This also makes it explicit that the only consequence on a conviction by a court of law is not dismissal from service. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances and pass such orders as it considers proper. Any of the penalties can be imposed and if the circumstances of the case are technical then it is also permissible that no penalty should be imposed. This all falls within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority who has to arrive at the conclusion after considering the circumstances of the case. The concept that every Government Servant who is convicted on a criminal charge will have to face termination is wholly baseless and incorrect. What the Constitution provides is that no inquiry is necessary in such cases and not that termination of service is the only penalty which could be improved. This matter was considered by the Supreme Court is case of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel and Ors. : (1985)IILLJ206SC and it would be proper to quote in the words of their Lordships Where a disciplinary authority comes to know that a government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose it will have to be peruse the judgments of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. Once the disciplinary authority reached the conclusion that the government servant's conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank he must decide which of these three penalties should be imposed on him. This too it has to do by itself and without hearing the concerned government servant by reason of the exclusionary effect of the second proviso. However, a conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the concerned government servant and therefore, it is not mandatory to impose any of these major penalties. Having decided which of these three penalties is required to be imposed, he has to pass the requisite order. The addition of the words' the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit, in Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules, Rule 19 of the Central Services Rules and Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, which are not to be found in the second proviso, would not create any inconsistency and would not warrant an interpretation of those Rules different from that to be placed upon the second proviso. Having regard to the meaning of the word 'consider' used in the aforesaid Rules in its ordinary and natural sence, it cannot be said that an objective consideration is possible' only if the delinquent employee is heard and is given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding final orders that may be passed by the said authority'. The consideration of what penalty should be imposed must be ex -parte and by the authority itself. Thus, it can be said that when a Disciplinary Authority comes to know that Government servant had been convicted by a court of law on a criminal charge then it has to act in accordance with Rule 19 of the CC and A Rules and consider whether the conduct of the Government Servant, which has led to his conviction is such which warrants penalty and if so, what that penalty should be. He has to peruse the judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. While following this procedure, the Disciplinary Authority has to come on its own conclusion and giving an opportunity of hearing to the Government Servant is not necessary under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
(3.) I would have sent the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for considering the question of penalty before imposing the same under Rule 19 of the CC and A Rules but in view of the fact that the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner and set aside the conviction there is no conviction on basis of which the Disciplinary Authority can impose any punishment on him. It is a very sorry state of affairs that such decisions are not taken by the concerned authorities on the representations which are preferred by the aggrieved persons and they are forced to approach this Court for seeking relief. The reply filed by the respondents only goes to show that inspite of long correspondence no decision was taken by the Government even after having learnt that the appeal of the petitioner had been accepted and he had been acquitted of the criminal charge. It is time that the Government authorities should wake up to such situations in time so that unnecessary litigation can be avoided. One of the reasons for the high rate of pendency of cases in the courts of law can also be said to be the inaction on the part of the Government in taking decision at the proper time.;