Conviction Of Employee Does Not Lead To Automatic Dismissal, Disciplinary Enquiry Must: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the ground of conviction, and that the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry or record reasons for not conducting an enquiry.

Rejecting the contention of HRTC, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Though learned counsel for HRTC argued that Rule 19(i) permits automatic termination of a government servant on conviction, this Court is not persuaded to agree. Having perused Rule 19 in its entirety, it is clear that the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case before passing such an order.”

The petitioner was employed as a driver with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Hamirpur. In 2011, the bus met with an accident. After the accident, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.

He filed an appeal, which was dismissed, and thereafter he filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, but the conviction was upheld.

After this, in 2019, HRTC issued a show-cause notice under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, removing the petitioner from service as he was convicted.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Court remarked that even though Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 permits termination in certain cases, including conviction. However, it held that even in these cases, the disciplinary authority should record reasons of termination.

Rejecting the conviction of HRTC that under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, conviction leads to automatic dismissal, it held that the authority must consider the nature of the offence, its gravity, and the overall service record before deciding on termination.

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner was a driver with HRTC for more than 28 years. Despite this he was not even given an opportunity to explain the accident, and no reasons were given for skipping the inquiry.

The Court observed that initially, disciplinary proceedings were invoked under Rule 14, and the petitioner was even asked to deposit ₹6,000, however, after this, the proceedings were dropped. The Court remarked that “Once disciplinary proceedings initiated… were dropped, there was otherwise no occasion… to resort to proceedings under Rule 19.”

Thus, the Court quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement.

Click Here To Read/Download Order