W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5034 of 2005 Shyam Sunder Tandan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order ongb-3—2009 i 1 (JD HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5034'of 2005 PETITIONER Shyam Sunder Tandan, S/o Dhel Singh Tandan, aged about 47 years, R/o Purani Basti, P.H. No.12, Village Thelki, P.O. Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of_Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantrlaya, D.KVS. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. Collector, Raipur (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Ms Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. ” R. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. O R D E R (Passed on this 3 0+‘day of March, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20—7-2005 (Annexure — P/3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate .V the petitioner in service w.e.f. 27—1-2004 with all consequential benefits. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that while the petitioner was working as Patwari of Patwari Halka No.12, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, he has been charged sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988’) for which by order dated 31—7-2002 (Annexure — P/1) the petitioner has been suspended from service. On completion of the trial, learned Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in special case No.9/2002 convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13 .\ (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo \\ R.l. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 ,000/-, in default of payment of fine to \.\. further undergo R.l. for 3 months and to undergo R.l. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 3 months, respectively. 3) Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr.A.No.99/2004 (Suresh Kumar Tandan vs. State of Chhattisgarh) before this Court. By order dated 3—2-2004 (Annexure — P/2) the sentences were suspended and the petitioner was released on bail. However, on account of conviction of the petitioner by order dated 20-7-2005 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the impugned dismissal order on the ground that the sentences imposed upon him have been suspended by the High Court and the appeal is pending consideration, therefore, the order of dismissal should not have been passed. 4) lt is well settled law that if a Government servant has been convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment, he may be dismissed from service. Mere filing of an appeal does not stay the conviction‘of sentence. Rule 19 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966’§ reads as under: “19. Special Procedure in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18:- (i) where any 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 by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any 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: Provided that the Commission shall be consulted where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.” 5) Rule 10 (viii) of the Rules, 1966 provides for termination of service, Rule 14 provides for procedure for imposing penalties, Rule 19 provides for \\ special procedure in certain cases where proceedings as contained in Rule \ \ \ ~ 14 to Rule 18 are not applicable. Rule 19 of the Rules 1966 is a non- obstante clause. Thus, it over rides the other general provisions, Accordingly, in a case of conviction by a competent Court, the petitioner may be terminated from service and no enquiry preceding imposition of termination is necessary. The present case comes within the purview of Rule 19 (1) ofthe Rules, 1966. 6) It is well settled that on a judgment of conviction against which an appeal or revision is filed, an employer or Appropriate Government, as the case may be, need not wait for taking an action against convicted employee, till the appeal or revision is decided against the conviction. However, if the conviction is set aside subsequently in appeal or othenNise, the order of dismissal will cease to have effect and the employee may make appropriate application for reinstatement with back wages, if so advised, from the date of dismissal till he is properly dismissed in compliance with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or relevant service rules. The employee could not seek the relief, that till decision of the Criminal Appeal no action against him on the show cause notice, issued under rule 19 be taken. 7) Bare perusal of the provisions of law as stated above, it is well established that once the petitioner, being a Government servant, is convicted of an offence committed by him and sentenced to undergo R.l. the employee may be dismissed from the service. Pendency of appeal in the High Court may not come in the way of dismissal from service and the order impugned herein is just and proper and needs no interference. ln the event, petitioner succeeds in criminal appeal; he may take reocurse to other remedy which may be available to him, under the provisions of law. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. 8) Gowri