P. Ravi gopal v. the same is being communicated by the 3rd

Petition under section 15"1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the dismissal order vide Lr. No. cPF I 120(378)iP.Ravigopat/G.Khani/VlG/g4, dated 1 3-01 -201 2 and the same is being communicated by the 3rd respondent vide Lr. No. cPFlGDKll20lconf/PRG/3299, dated 1B-01-2012 while.directing to pay service benefits, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL / SRI P.A.V.V.S.SARMA The Court made the following: ORDER 4 I // / THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. LTOS of2012 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in passing the dismissal order vide Lr. No.CPF/ 120(378)/ P.Ravigopal/G.Kh anilVtG /84, 13.01.2012 and the same is being communicated by the respondent No.3 vide Lr.No.CPF/GDK/ t2O I ConflpRc / 3299, dated 18.01.2012 as illegal.

2. Petitioner herein was working as employee in Coal Mines Provident Organization. Petitioner is LDC in the year l9Z1 atd, promoted to the pos! of UDC and while working in Godavarikhani, he was transferred to the Nagpur and while he was rvorking at Nagpur, he was transferred to Margherita. The Scheme is administered by a Commissioner appointed by Central Government and shall be subjected to the general; control and superintendence of the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3B of the Act. Under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, Commissioner, Regional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner are the competent 2 authorities to sarction the withdrawal from the fund. Generalll', LDCs and UDCs do not carry arry porver either under the scheme or under anv executive instructions of the Organization. The Commissioner reviewed claims settled of the year 2OO5 in the year 2010 and there was audit by the Auditor General of Inclia. Basing on the audit, charges were framed against the petitioner herein and petitioner was piaced under suspension on 31.12.2O1O. Respondent No. I initiated disciplinary proceedings and also initiated criminal proceedings under FIR No.496l20 10 dated 20.12.2010, as such he filed W.P.No.26890 of 2011 to direct the respondents not to proceed in disciplinary proceedings issued by the respondent No.1 Memorandum charge No.CMPFO/12OlP.Ravigopal/NGP/HQ/Vigl1016, dated

30.09.2010 till finality of the criminal proceedings and interim orders were passed on 27 .O9.2O11 staying :r11 further proceedings.

3. Respondent No.1 passed dismissal order on 13.01.2012 and it was received by him in 19.01.2012 and he u'as convicted ,I I 3 on criminal charge and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 13 (2) r/w.(1) (d) of Prevcntion of Corruption Act. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2012 against the said sentence, but the respondents without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 without giving any opportunity of making a representation dismissed him from service and it is contrary to the procedure and thus requested [he Court to set aside the dismissal order

4. [n a counter filed by respondents, it is contended that petrtloner \\ras caught red-harded on 21..02.2OO5 \^'hile clemanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.13,50O/ arld accordingly, he was convicted with imprisonment and fine. He has not informed about the same to the superiors. When they came to know about the penalty, they dismissed him from 4 SCTVICES. Thev have separate rules to be followed under notification dated 2 1.O9.1964.

5. As per provisions of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 32, clause 5(i) of the r.rotification dated 21.O9.1964 defines that when a penalty imposed on an employee on the ground of conduct whicl-r has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such others thereon as it deems fit.

6. Petitioner in his reply affidavit stated that while he was working in Naqpur, he served a copy of notice as contemplated under Rule 1() ol CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 to an employee by nanle Sri Dhirendra Kumar Das, UDC against \:hom a trap case is initiatcd at Regional Office, Bilaspur, but as he working at Nagpur, tht' notice seeking al explanation \\'as served on him and later he was dismissed from service on 29 .12 .2O | 1 . No such opportunitl u,as given to the petitioner and he cannot be discriminated. As per Rule i9 of CCS and CCA Rules, 1965, an employee cannot be dismissed from service u,ithout seeking an explanation from him. //. \ / 5

7. Learned counsel for petition relied upon citation reported rn Union of India and Others Vs Sunil Kumar Scrrkcrl, in I which it was held as follows: "The Diuision Bench did not take into consideration Rule 19 of the Central Rules uthich contemplates that if ang penalty is imposed on a Gouernment seruant on hi.s conuiction in o ciminal charge, ttrc disciplinary authoritg con make such order as it deem.s fit (dismissal from seruice is one such order contemplated under RuLe )9) on initicLting disciplinary proceedings and afier giuing the delinquent off,cer an opportunitg of making a representotion on the penalty proposed to be imposed. As a matter of fact, this tgpe of di.scipLinarg procedure is contemplated in the Constitution itseLf as couLd be see.n in ArticLe 31 1(2)(a). Rule 1 9 of the Central Rzles is ln conformitg utith the aboue proubions of the Constitution. This, os LUe see, is a summary procedure prouided to take discipLinarg action against a Gouemment seruant who is olready conuicted in a criminal proceeding. The uery foundation of imposing punishment under Rule 19 is thot there should be a prior conuiction on a ciminaL chorge. All that a discipLinary authoitg is expected to do under RuIe 19 is to be satisfied that ttLe oJficer concented has been conutcted of a ciminal charge and has been giuen a shou.t cause notice and replg to such shotu cause | 2OO1 {21 Supreme 199 6 notice. Rute 19 to maintain the proportionolity of puni.shment. In the instant case, the discipliLa ry outhoritg has follouted the procedure laid doun in Rule 19, hence, ue cannot agree LDith the Diuision Bench. that the soid disciptinary authoitg had any. pre-deternti.ned mind uhen it passed the order of dismi.ssal.

8. Learned counsel for respondents contended that as per Proviso (2) Article 3 1 1 (2) and moreover as he was already convicted in a criminal case and when they calne to klrow about the same, they rightly passed the dismissal order. g. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was dismissed '*'ithout following due process' He is entitled for all benef,its i.e., 2 years 5 months. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that Criminal Appeal was allowed and the conviction passed by the trial Court was set aside in an order dated 27.12.2024.

10. No doubt, ir-r this case, the Department also filt:d criminal complaint against petitioner and also it is stated that respondent No.l initiated disciplinary proceedings and also filed complaint dated 20.12.2O\O- Respondents' counsel contended that the order of the dismissal was rightlv passed by I 7 the Corporation by the Organization whereas petitioner counsel contended that procedure required under rule 19 of CCA Rules was not followed. Even in case of conviction by the Criminal Court, it is for the Organization to give notice arrd to call lor explanation and then only they should proceed with the dismissal. In fact, petitioner further stated that the said procedure was followed in case ol other employee who was I \ working in same organization, as such the dismissal order is not proper and it is to be set aside. The disciplinary proceedings and criminal chargers are different. Merely because a person is convicted under a criminal case, it cannot be said that basing on the said conviction, he cal be removed from the service without following due process. Therefore, this Court finds that the order passed by the Corporation is without issuance of notice and it is not in accordance with service rules and it is liable to be set aside, as such he is entitled for retirement benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of his retirement. The Coa.l Mines Provident Fund Organization/respondent No.1 is directed to pay all the service benefits to the petitioner within two montles from the date of 8 this order i.e., on or before 26,05.2025 failing u,hich they have to pay the same with interest @7 '5%' 1 1. With the above directi6n, this writ petition is allowed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Abso lute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Wednesd aY' the TwentY Sixth Day of M arch, Two Thousand and TwentY Five' SD/-P.PAD MANAB HA REDDY PUTY RE GISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I I To,

1. The Com missioner' Coal Mines P rovident Fund Organizati on Jagiiwan Nagar' Mines Provident Fund Organization Police Lines, Dhanbad - 826 00'1 Jharkhand. ' 2 The Reg Margherit a, Tinsuki ional Co mmissioner, a District, Assa Coal mState - 786 181 Ka Regiona avarikhan lCommissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization

3. The nmnagar, A.P. God 4. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS EMANI' Advocate IOPUC] A.V.V.S.SARMA, Advocate tOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI P K.ARVIND KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 6. One CC to SRI toPUCl

7. Two CD CoPies BSR LS qb HIGH COURI' DATED:2610312025 I I I I ORDER WP.No.1705 of 2012 1,.i ST" t € ) ) o 01 tlti\ 2[25 C' a t DEspAr ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @q'n W