Sri Shrinath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri vs In rebuttal, Sri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents

Judgment

1. In the present case, petitioner, a Pharmacist at Cantonment Hospital, Agra has faced a Sessions Trial for an offence under Sections 302, 323, 452 IPC for an occurrence took place on

14.03.1988 wherein one person died and two persons got injured. The trial was concluded and trial Court by a judgment and order dated 28.04.2000 convicted the petitioner and other three accused under Sections 304/34, 323/34 and 452 IPC and petitioner was awarded sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment.

2. An appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order was filed which is still pending though petitioner was granted suspension of sentence vide an order dated 02.05.2000.

3. On basis of above referred conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide an order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Agra (Competent Authority). For reference, said order is quoted below :-

“WHEREAS, Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist, has been convicted by the Hon'ble Court of IV, Addl. Session Judge, Agra in judgment and order dt. 28.4.2000 in S.T. No. 166 of 1000; AND WHEREAS, the conviction by the court has not been set-aside by any other Court/authority; AND WHEREAS, the judgement dt. 28.4.2000 of the Hon'ble Court of IV Addl. Session Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 166 of 1990 (State Vs Indra Mohan & others) has been perused by the undersigned and it is found that the gravity of misconduct committed by Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist is prejudicial to the administration of the Cantonment Board and that he is not fit to remain in service; AND WHEREAS, the representation dt. Nil received in the office on 17.12.2003 from Shri Indra Mohan Panday has been considered by the undersigned; THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred upon the disciplinary authority under Rule 11 (2) (VIII) of CFSR 1937 Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist is dismissed from the service with immediate effect.”

4. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner has filed Departmental Appeal which remained pending for many years and finally vide order dated 03.09.2013, it was dismissed after taking note of judgment and order of conviction and punishment and relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court.

5. Initially this writ petition was filed wherein only the order dated 03.09.2013 (order passed in Departmental Appeal) was challenged, however, later on by way of amendment, order dated

30.01.2004 whereby punishment awarded in disciplinary proceedings was also challenged.

6. Sri Shrinath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Ram Kishan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020:AHC:7131, Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs. 2 State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC-LKO:59434 and Gulab Dutt Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:22623 and submitted that in the impugned order, concerned respondent has not assigned any consideration about conduct of petitioner leading to his conviction and has prayed that impugned order be set aside and petitioner may be given consequential benefits.

7. In rebuttal, Sri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Admin.) Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364 as well as referred Clause 12(A)(1) and 12(E) of The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. For reference, relevant Clause 12(E) is quoted below :- “12(E) – Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 12 to 12 D - (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a 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 recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.”

8. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

9. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be necessary to reproduce reasons given by the trial Court while convicting the petitioner and others for committing an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing 3 hurt and mischief in furtherance of common intention of all accused :- वि(cid:18) पी. रिरपोट( !ी डब्ल्यू 1 उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18)सी देरी (cid:18)े अ퐂वि(cid:18)त (cid:18)र䨛卛 दी गयी 㞅䃅኉ᮽ “ नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र जो वि(cid:18) स्(cid:7)य퐂 चुट኉ᮽ쿃셙 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ने अभि!योजन प蘐錑 (cid:18)䨛卛 अपने स䨛卛ቌኚय द‌्(cid:7)䨛卛र䨛卛 पू ्ቓ( चिचवि(cid:18)त्सीय स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)䨛卛 सम्ቕ(न वि(cid:18)य䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ त्ቕ䨛卛 इस ग(cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅 (cid:18)े स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)ो वि(cid:7)्ቫनीय 㞅䃅኉ᮽ त्ቕ䨛卛 सम्ቕ(न !ी ्ቚ䨛卛쇨쭳 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से य㞅䃅 ग(cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅 पू ्ቓ(तय䨛卛 ꙁ뢾 वि6न䨛卛 घटन䨛卛 (cid:18)롽룙 विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 24.8.98 वि(cid:18) इसम᭠᯵ मेरे (cid:18)े आदेⷅᰊप‌矓硞 से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ पू (cid:7)䨛卛(चि:(cid:18)䨛卛री ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ वि(cid:18)य䨛卛, वि(cid:18) (cid:7)䨛卛द (cid:18)롽룙 (cid:18)䨛卛य((cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅ी (cid:18)े वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी जो दौर䨛卛न वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो गयी 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से वि(cid:18) दू सरी चुट኉ᮽ쿃셙 स䨛卛蘐錑ी ्ቕी मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛ने (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ स䨛卛ቌኚय म᭠᯵ ्ቚस्तुत न㞅䃅 㞅䃅ो प䨛卛쇑샼 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 म䨛卛रपीट (cid:18)र(cid:18)े मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स, 퐂च䨛卛ये ज䨛卛ने से सम्6቏ኌB:त मोविट(cid:7) वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी (cid:7) नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु !ी अभि!योजन प蘐錑 (cid:18)롽룙 ओर से पी.डब्ल्यू . 1 नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)롽룙 स䨛卛ቌኚय ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 सिस㞩勱 (cid:18)र विदय䨛卛 गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) प वि(cid:18) विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 14-3-88 . डब्쿃셙ू . 1 नरेⷅᰊ उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 से म湤敵 इस विनष्(cid:18)䁐䃀( पर आत䨛卛 㞅䃅ू (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)롽룙 स䨛卛ቌኚय ए(cid:7)퐂 प矓硞䨛卛(cid:7)쿃셙ी पर उप쿃셙ब्: चिचवि(cid:18)त्स(cid:18)롽룙य ए(cid:7)퐂 अBय 11 स䨛卛ቌኚय से य㞅䃅 सिस㞩勱 㞅䃅ो गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ 6जे र䨛卛त (cid:18)म्पनी 6䨛卛ग (cid:18)኉ᮽ Bटनम኉ᮽBट 6ोड( ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 क्(cid:7)䨛卛टर ्ቕ䨛卛न䨛卛 सदर 6䨛卛ज䨛卛र सिज쿃셙䨛卛 आगर䨛卛 म᭠᯵ अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 (cid:7)䨛卛दी नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)े क्(cid:7)䨛卛टर म᭠᯵ , वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 घुस(cid:18)र (cid:7)䨛卛दी नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र सिजससे दे(cid:7)ी (cid:18)ो घर म᭠᯵ घुस(cid:18)र 쇑샼 퐂ट 15-3- वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ आय और इB㞅䃅 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)े (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 88 (cid:18)ो !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु अस्पत䨛卛쿃셙 म᭠᯵ 㞅䃅ो गयीꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से अभि!योजन ने अपन䨛卛 प蘐錑 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े सिस㞩勱 (cid:18)र विदय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 उस(cid:18)े !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स त्ቕ䨛卛 उस(cid:18)롽룙 म䨛卛ሶ኉ पत््ቕर (cid:7) डण्ड匿敄 से म䨛卛र䨛卛पीट䨛卛 गय䨛卛 वि(cid:7)रू㞩勱 स퐂दे㞅䃅 से परे (cid:18)ो 쿃셙ग!ग - ज㞅䃅䨛卛퐂 त(cid:18) :䨛卛र䨛卛- 323, 425 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े 㞅䃅኉ᮽ :䨛卛र䨛卛 304 वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 वि(cid:7)रू㞩勱 स퐂दे㞅䃅 से परे !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)䨛卛 ्ቚ㝁⹞ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ य㞅䃅 आरोप सिस㞩勱 㞅䃅ो गये 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 अ6 देखन䨛卛 य㞅䃅 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅湤敵 य䨛卛 रिरपोट( म᭠᯵ (cid:18)े (cid:7)쿃셙 इतन䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने 쇑샼 퐂ट-पत््ቕर ्ቚ्ቕम सू चन䨛卛 쿃셙䨛卛ठी डण्ड匿敄 से घुस(cid:18)र म䨛卛रपीट वि(cid:18)य䨛卛 ्ቕ䨛卛 अ्ቕ䨛卛(त ऐस䨛卛 (cid:18)ो쇑샼 तथ्य वि(cid:18) अभि!- यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने य㞅䃅 म䨛卛रपीट !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रने (cid:18)े वि(cid:18) इस म䨛卛रपीट आⷅᰊय से ज䨛卛न6ू 鎝鲄 (cid:18)र (cid:18)롽룙 ्ቕी (cid:7) उB㞅䃅᭠᯵ य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛न ्ቕ䨛卛 रिरपोट( म᭠᯵ य䨛卛 स䨛卛ቌኚय से !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛येगीꙁ뢾 ्ቚ्ቕम सू चन䨛卛 म᭠᯵ न㞅䃅 आय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 ज6वि(cid:18) :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 लि쿃셙ये य㞅䃅 आ(cid:7)श्य(cid:18) !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)े 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)䨛卛 आⷅᰊय मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रन䨛卛 㞅䃅ो त्ቕ䨛卛 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)े इस (cid:18)䨛卛य( से मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛येगी, य㞅䃅ी (cid:18)ो य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛न 㞅䃅ो न㞅䃅 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ पर (cid:18)ो쇑샼 घ䨛卛त(cid:18) 㞅䃅भि्ቕय䨛卛र 㞅䃅ोन䨛卛 !ी न㞅䃅 (cid:18)㞅䃅े गये 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ उपरो漶脘 स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)롽룙 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य न㞅䃅 㞅䃅኉ᮽ क्य匿敄वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)䨛卛 आⷅᰊय मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रने (cid:18)䨛卛 न㞅䃅 ्ቕ䨛卛ꙁ뢾 वि(cid:18)Bतु प矓硞䨛卛(cid:7)쿃셙ी पर उप쿃셙ब्: स䨛卛ቌኚय से पत््ቕर से मृत(cid:18) य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ 퐂च䨛卛यी ्ቕ !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:7) वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी त्ቕ䨛卛 नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु . डब्ल्यु ड䨛卛० . 4 सिजससे !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो गयी ्ቕीꙁ뢾 पी 5 आर . सी . चोट᭠᯵ ्ቕ त्ቕ䨛卛 मृत(cid:18) ज኉ᮽन (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र मृत(cid:18) (cid:18)े ⷅᰊरीर पर वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने 쿃셙䨛卛ठी डण्ड匿敄 (cid:7) 쇑샼 퐂ट - - 4 ሶ኉ . डब्ल्यू 퐂च䨛卛यी गयी ्ቕ वि(cid:18)Bतु य㞅䃅 चोट᭠᯵ घ䨛卛त(cid:18) अኚᮌ匿敄 से न㞅䃅 प㞅䃅ु . 9 (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु सिसर पर आ쇑샼 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)롽룙 (cid:7)ज㞅䃅 से 㞅䃅ु쇑샼 ्ቕीꙁ뢾 पी ड䨛卛० वि(cid:7)जय (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र विम्ቈ쿃셙 (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स इमरजेBसी म᭠᯵ गम्!ीर वि(cid:18) सिसर (cid:18)롽룙 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ !त\ 㞅䃅ुये ्ቕेꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)ो अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 ए(cid:18) र䨛卛य 㞅䃅ो(cid:18)र गम्!ीर चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु 퐂च䨛卛यी गयी वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े ्ቕीꙁ뢾 स䨛卛ቌኚय ए(cid:7)퐂 परिर቏ኌस््ቕचितय匿敄 से य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛त 㞅䃅ोत䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)े ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 (cid:18)롽룙 गयी म䨛卛रपीट से घ䨛卛त(cid:18) चोट᭠᯵ आ स퐂्ሺ䨛卛न म᭠᯵ य㞅䃅 ्ቕ䨛卛 वि(cid:18) मृत्यु !ी (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत 㞅䃅ो स(cid:18)ती ्ቕी और उB㞅䃅 चोट匿敄 स(cid:18)ती ्ቕी सिजससे (cid:18)ो 㞅䃅ो (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु इस परिर቏ኌस््ቕचितय匿敄 म᭠᯵ अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 (cid:18)े गयीꙁ뢾 अत쩟쨼 अनुस䨛卛र :䨛卛र䨛卛 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)े अBतग(त द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ”ꙁ뢾

15.3.88 विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18)

10. Learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order, conduct of petitioner leading to conviction was not considered whereas argument of learned counsel for respondents was that since conviction was for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a serious offence, and petitioner was directly involved in the crime and that impugned order was based on the judgment and order of trial Court, therefore, there was no requirement to assign specific reason or to mention specific conduct of the petitioner.

11. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

12. Above referred Regulation 12(E) provides an exception to Rule 12 that no order imposing any penalty specified in Clause 4 to 8 of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner provided in the Rule 12 and Rule 12-A except where any penalty imposed on service on a ground of conduct which has led to his conviction in a criminal case, therefore, in present case where impugned order was passed without conducting proper inquiry is not an illegal order.

13. Now Court proceeds to consider whether the conduct of petitioner which has led his conviction is mandatory to be 5 mentioned in impugned order of imposing any penalty or if the contents of impugned order are on basis of perusal of the order of conviction wherein petitioner has a direct role would be sufficient.

14. Court takes note of a judgment on which learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner has placed reliance which are essentially based on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 wherein employee was convicted under Section 409 IPC and on basis of conviction, he was dismissed from service and since it was a pity offence, therefore, in given circumstances, penalty of dismissal was interfered making observation that right to impose a penalty carries with it a duty to act justly considering a ground of conduct which has led to conviction of employee.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that only on a ground that conduct of petitioner led to his conviction was not specifically mentioned in impugned order would not render the order impugned absolutely illegal since concerned respondents have taken note of order of conviction and punishment and considered the gravity of misconduct and an order of dismissal from service was passed.

16. I have already mentioned relevant paragraph of judgment of conviction that petitioner along with other accused were directly involved in committing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt and mischief with common intention of all accused, therefore, role of petitioner in committing said crime was direct and specific. 6

17. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby petitioner was dismissed from service after taking note of gravity of offence and judgment of conviction.

18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, hence, present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- August 23, 2025 N. Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7

“WHEREAS, Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist, has been convicted by the Hon'ble Court of IV, Addl. Session Judge, Agra in judgment and order dt. 28.4.2000 in S.T. No. 166 of 1000; AND WHEREAS, the conviction by the court has not been set-aside by any other Court/authority; AND WHEREAS, the judgement dt. 28.4.2000 of the Hon'ble Court of IV Addl. Session Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 166 of 1990 (State Vs Indra Mohan & others) has been perused by the undersigned and it is found that the gravity of misconduct committed by Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist is prejudicial to the administration of the Cantonment Board and that he is not fit to remain in service; AND WHEREAS, the representation dt. Nil received in the office on 17.12.2003 from Shri Indra Mohan Panday has been considered by the undersigned; THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred upon the disciplinary authority under Rule 11 (2) (VIII) of CFSR 1937 Shri Indra Mohan Panday, Pharmacist is dismissed from the service with immediate effect.”

4. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner has filed Departmental Appeal which remained pending for many years and finally vide order dated 03.09.2013, it was dismissed after taking note of judgment and order of conviction and punishment and relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court.

5. Initially this writ petition was filed wherein only the order dated 03.09.2013 (order passed in Departmental Appeal) was challenged, however, later on by way of amendment, order dated

30.01.2004 whereby punishment awarded in disciplinary proceedings was also challenged.

6. Sri Shrinath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Ram Kishan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020:AHC:7131, Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs. 2 State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC-LKO:59434 and Gulab Dutt Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:22623 and submitted that in the impugned order, concerned respondent has not assigned any consideration about conduct of petitioner leading to his conviction and has prayed that impugned order be set aside and petitioner may be given consequential benefits.

7. In rebuttal, Sri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Admin.) Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364 as well as referred Clause 12(A)(1) and 12(E) of The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. For reference, relevant Clause 12(E) is quoted below :- “12(E) – Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 12 to 12 D - (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a 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 recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.”

8. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

9. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be necessary to reproduce reasons given by the trial Court while convicting the petitioner and others for committing an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing 3 hurt and mischief in furtherance of common intention of all accused :- वि(cid:18) पी. रिरपोट( !ी डब्ल्यू 1 उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18)सी देरी (cid:18)े अ퐂वि(cid:18)त (cid:18)र䨛卛 दी गयी 㞅䃅኉ᮽ “ नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र जो वि(cid:18) स्(cid:7)य퐂 चुट኉ᮽ쿃셙 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ने अभि!योजन प蘐錑 (cid:18)䨛卛 अपने स䨛卛ቌኚय द‌्(cid:7)䨛卛र䨛卛 पू ्ቓ( चिचवि(cid:18)त्सीय स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)䨛卛 सम्ቕ(न वि(cid:18)य䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ त्ቕ䨛卛 इस ग(cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅 (cid:18)े स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)ो वि(cid:7)्ቫनीय 㞅䃅኉ᮽ त्ቕ䨛卛 सम्ቕ(न !ी ्ቚ䨛卛쇨쭳 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से य㞅䃅 ग(cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅 पू ्ቓ(तय䨛卛 ꙁ뢾 वि6न䨛卛 घटन䨛卛 (cid:18)롽룙 विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 24.8.98 वि(cid:18) इसम᭠᯵ मेरे (cid:18)े आदेⷅᰊप‌矓硞 से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ पू (cid:7)䨛卛(चि:(cid:18)䨛卛री ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ वि(cid:18)य䨛卛, वि(cid:18) (cid:7)䨛卛द (cid:18)롽룙 (cid:18)䨛卛य((cid:7)䨛卛㞅䃅ी (cid:18)े वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी जो दौर䨛卛न वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो गयी 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से वि(cid:18) दू सरी चुट኉ᮽ쿃셙 स䨛卛蘐錑ी ्ቕी मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛ने (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ स䨛卛ቌኚय म᭠᯵ ्ቚस्तुत न㞅䃅 㞅䃅ो प䨛卛쇑샼 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 म䨛卛रपीट (cid:18)र(cid:18)े मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स, 퐂च䨛卛ये ज䨛卛ने से सम्6቏ኌB:त मोविट(cid:7) वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी (cid:7) नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु !ी अभि!योजन प蘐錑 (cid:18)롽룙 ओर से पी.डब्ल्यू . 1 नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)롽룙 स䨛卛ቌኚय ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 सिस㞩勱 (cid:18)र विदय䨛卛 गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) प वि(cid:18) विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 14-3-88 . डब्쿃셙ू . 1 नरेⷅᰊ उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 से म湤敵 इस विनष्(cid:18)䁐䃀( पर आत䨛卛 㞅䃅ू (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)롽룙 स䨛卛ቌኚय ए(cid:7)퐂 प矓硞䨛卛(cid:7)쿃셙ी पर उप쿃셙ब्: चिचवि(cid:18)त्स(cid:18)롽룙य ए(cid:7)퐂 अBय 11 स䨛卛ቌኚय से य㞅䃅 सिस㞩勱 㞅䃅ो गय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ 6जे र䨛卛त (cid:18)म्पनी 6䨛卛ग (cid:18)኉ᮽ Bटनम኉ᮽBट 6ोड( ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 क्(cid:7)䨛卛टर ्ቕ䨛卛न䨛卛 सदर 6䨛卛ज䨛卛र सिज쿃셙䨛卛 आगर䨛卛 म᭠᯵ अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 (cid:7)䨛卛दी नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)े क्(cid:7)䨛卛टर म᭠᯵ , वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 घुस(cid:18)र (cid:7)䨛卛दी नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र सिजससे दे(cid:7)ी (cid:18)ो घर म᭠᯵ घुस(cid:18)र 쇑샼 퐂ट 15-3- वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ आय और इB㞅䃅 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)े (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18) 88 (cid:18)ो !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु अस्पत䨛卛쿃셙 म᭠᯵ 㞅䃅ो गयीꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से अभि!योजन ने अपन䨛卛 प蘐錑 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े सिस㞩勱 (cid:18)र विदय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 उस(cid:18)े !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स त्ቕ䨛卛 उस(cid:18)롽룙 म䨛卛ሶ኉ पत््ቕर (cid:7) डण्ड匿敄 से म䨛卛र䨛卛पीट䨛卛 गय䨛卛 वि(cid:7)रू㞩勱 स퐂दे㞅䃅 से परे (cid:18)ो 쿃셙ग!ग - ज㞅䃅䨛卛퐂 त(cid:18) :䨛卛र䨛卛- 323, 425 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े 㞅䃅኉ᮽ :䨛卛र䨛卛 304 वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 वि(cid:7)रू㞩勱 स퐂दे㞅䃅 से परे !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)䨛卛 ्ቚ㝁⹞ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ य㞅䃅 आरोप सिस㞩勱 㞅䃅ो गये 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 अ6 देखन䨛卛 य㞅䃅 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅湤敵 य䨛卛 रिरपोट( म᭠᯵ (cid:18)े (cid:7)쿃셙 इतन䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने 쇑샼 퐂ट-पत््ቕर ्ቚ्ቕम सू चन䨛卛 쿃셙䨛卛ठी डण्ड匿敄 से घुस(cid:18)र म䨛卛रपीट वि(cid:18)य䨛卛 ्ቕ䨛卛 अ्ቕ䨛卛(त ऐस䨛卛 (cid:18)ो쇑샼 तथ्य वि(cid:18) अभि!- यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने य㞅䃅 म䨛卛रपीट !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रने (cid:18)े वि(cid:18) इस म䨛卛रपीट आⷅᰊय से ज䨛卛न6ू 鎝鲄 (cid:18)र (cid:18)롽룙 ्ቕी (cid:7) उB㞅䃅᭠᯵ य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛न ्ቕ䨛卛 रिरपोट( म᭠᯵ य䨛卛 स䨛卛ቌኚय से !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛येगीꙁ뢾 ्ቚ्ቕम सू चन䨛卛 म᭠᯵ न㞅䃅 आय䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽꙁ뢾 ज6वि(cid:18) :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 लि쿃셙ये य㞅䃅 आ(cid:7)श्य(cid:18) !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)े 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)䨛卛 आⷅᰊय मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रन䨛卛 㞅䃅ो त्ቕ䨛卛 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)े इस (cid:18)䨛卛य( से मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत 㞅䃅ो ज䨛卛येगी, य㞅䃅ी (cid:18)ो य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛न 㞅䃅ो न㞅䃅 अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ पर (cid:18)ो쇑샼 घ䨛卛त(cid:18) 㞅䃅भि्ቕय䨛卛र 㞅䃅ोन䨛卛 !ी न㞅䃅 (cid:18)㞅䃅े गये 㞅䃅湤敵ꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ उपरो漶脘 स䨛卛ቌኚय (cid:18)롽룙 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र :䨛卛र䨛卛 302 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० म᭠᯵ द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य न㞅䃅 㞅䃅኉ᮽ क्य匿敄वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)䨛卛 आⷅᰊय मृत्यु (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत (cid:18)रने (cid:18)䨛卛 न㞅䃅 ्ቕ䨛卛ꙁ뢾 वि(cid:18)Bतु प矓硞䨛卛(cid:7)쿃셙ी पर उप쿃셙ब्: स䨛卛ቌኚय से पत््ቕर से मृत(cid:18) य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ 퐂च䨛卛यी ्ቕ !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:7) वि(cid:7)म쿃셙䨛卛 दे(cid:7)ी त्ቕ䨛卛 नरेⷅᰊ (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र (cid:18)ो चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु . डब्ल्यु ड䨛卛० . 4 सिजससे !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु 㞅䃅ो गयी ्ቕीꙁ뢾 पी 5 आर . सी . चोट᭠᯵ ्ቕ त्ቕ䨛卛 मृत(cid:18) ज኉ᮽन (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र मृत(cid:18) (cid:18)े ⷅᰊरीर पर वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ने 쿃셙䨛卛ठी डण्ड匿敄 (cid:7) 쇑샼 퐂ट - - 4 ሶ኉ . डब्ल्यू 퐂च䨛卛यी गयी ्ቕ वि(cid:18)Bतु य㞅䃅 चोट᭠᯵ घ䨛卛त(cid:18) अኚᮌ匿敄 से न㞅䃅 प㞅䃅ु . 9 (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु सिसर पर आ쇑샼 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)롽룙 (cid:7)ज㞅䃅 से 㞅䃅ु쇑샼 ्ቕीꙁ뢾 पी ड䨛卛० वि(cid:7)जय (cid:18)ु म䨛卛र विम्ቈ쿃셙 (cid:18)े अनुस䨛卛र !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स इमरजेBसी म᭠᯵ गम्!ीर वि(cid:18) सिसर (cid:18)롽룙 चोट匿敄 (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ !त\ 㞅䃅ुये ्ቕेꙁ뢾 इस ्ቚ(cid:18)䨛卛र से य㞅䃅 स्प⸘┪ 㞅䃅኉ᮽ मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)ो अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 ए(cid:18) र䨛卛य 㞅䃅ो(cid:18)र गम्!ीर चोट᭠᯵ प㞅䃅ु 퐂च䨛卛यी गयी वि(cid:18) अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ (cid:18)े ्ቕीꙁ뢾 स䨛卛ቌኚय ए(cid:7)퐂 परिर቏ኌस््ቕचितय匿敄 से य㞅䃅 ्ሺ䨛卛त 㞅䃅ोत䨛卛 㞅䃅኉ᮽ वि(cid:18) उन(cid:18)े ्ቛ䨛卛र䨛卛 (cid:18)롽룙 गयी म䨛卛रपीट से घ䨛卛त(cid:18) चोट᭠᯵ आ स퐂्ሺ䨛卛न म᭠᯵ य㞅䃅 ्ቕ䨛卛 वि(cid:18) मृत्यु !ी (cid:18)䨛卛रिरत 㞅䃅ो स(cid:18)ती ्ቕी और उB㞅䃅 चोट匿敄 स(cid:18)ती ्ቕी सिजससे (cid:18)ो 㞅䃅ो (cid:18)े (cid:18)䨛卛र्ቓ मृत(cid:18) !ग(cid:7)䨛卛न द䨛卛स (cid:18)롽룙 मृत्यु इस परिर቏ኌस््ቕचितय匿敄 म᭠᯵ अभि!यु漶脘ग्ቓ उपरो漶脘 वि(cid:7)(cid:7)ेचन䨛卛 (cid:18)े गयीꙁ뢾 अत쩟쨼 अनुस䨛卛र :䨛卛र䨛卛 !䨛卛०द퐂०स퐂० (cid:18)े अBतग(त द቏ኌण्डत 㞅䃅ोने योग्य 㞅䃅኉ᮽ ”ꙁ뢾

15.3.88 विदन䨛卛퐂(cid:18)

10. Learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order, conduct of petitioner leading to conviction was not considered whereas argument of learned counsel for respondents was that since conviction was for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a serious offence, and petitioner was directly involved in the crime and that impugned order was based on the judgment and order of trial Court, therefore, there was no requirement to assign specific reason or to mention specific conduct of the petitioner.

11. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

12. Above referred Regulation 12(E) provides an exception to Rule 12 that no order imposing any penalty specified in Clause 4 to 8 of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner provided in the Rule 12 and Rule 12-A except where any penalty imposed on service on a ground of conduct which has led to his conviction in a criminal case, therefore, in present case where impugned order was passed without conducting proper inquiry is not an illegal order.

13. Now Court proceeds to consider whether the conduct of petitioner which has led his conviction is mandatory to be 5 mentioned in impugned order of imposing any penalty or if the contents of impugned order are on basis of perusal of the order of conviction wherein petitioner has a direct role would be sufficient.

14. Court takes note of a judgment on which learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner has placed reliance which are essentially based on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 wherein employee was convicted under Section 409 IPC and on basis of conviction, he was dismissed from service and since it was a pity offence, therefore, in given circumstances, penalty of dismissal was interfered making observation that right to impose a penalty carries with it a duty to act justly considering a ground of conduct which has led to conviction of employee.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that only on a ground that conduct of petitioner led to his conviction was not specifically mentioned in impugned order would not render the order impugned absolutely illegal since concerned respondents have taken note of order of conviction and punishment and considered the gravity of misconduct and an order of dismissal from service was passed.

16. I have already mentioned relevant paragraph of judgment of conviction that petitioner along with other accused were directly involved in committing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt and mischief with common intention of all accused, therefore, role of petitioner in committing said crime was direct and specific. 6

17. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby petitioner was dismissed from service after taking note of gravity of offence and judgment of conviction.

18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, hence, present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- August 23, 2025 N. Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7