K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh). Hon
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) No.757 of 2018 Ramesh Chandra Behera ..... Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Agriculture And Food Production Dept. 3) Deputy Director Agriculture, Ganjam 4) Asst. Agriculture Engineer, Jeypore .....
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 15.04.2024 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order dtd.22.03.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2. Vide the said order Petitioner was dismissed from Govt. service because of his conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in his Judgment dtd.30.06.2005 in G.R. Case No. 9/1995 (V) (T.R. No. 165/1998). 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that against such order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2005 before this Page 1 of 4. court. This Court vide order dtd.28.07.2005 while admitting the appeal, passed an order by suspending the order of punishment and sentence in Misc. Case No. 555 of 2005 arising out of the said appeal. It is contended that since the order of sentence so passed by the learned Special Judge was suspended by this Court while admitting the appeal, Petitioner could not have been dismissed from Govt. service vide the impugned order and he should have been allowed to continue subject to final outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2005. 5. To the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Dhal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that taking into account the nature of allegation made against the Petitioner in the vigilance case, he was convicted to undergo R.I. for one year under Sec. 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and further sentence to undergo R.I. for six months for offence under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act. 5.1. It is contended that even though the order of conviction and sentence has been suspended by this Court while admitting the appeal vide order dtd.28.07.2005, but taking into account the nature of allegation made against the Petitioner, Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from his services. In support of his submission Mr. Dhal relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court so reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 (K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 12 & 13 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the Page 2 of 4. is functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest which suffers and sometimes, even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only (sic) public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction. 13. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision.” Page 3 of 4. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since against the order of conviction and sentence Petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2005 before this Court, the order of dismissal so passed under Annexure-2 may be subject to final outcome of the criminal appeal and if the Petitioner will succeed in the appeal, he may be extended with all the service and financial benefits as due and admissible. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record and the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sareen (as cited supra), this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.22.03.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2. While not interfering with the said order, this Court only observes that the order of dismissal so passed shall be subject to final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2005. If the Petitioner succeeds in the appeal, it will be open for him to raise his claim to get the benefit as due and admissible to him, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:40:48 Page 4 of 4.