IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.217 of 2010 ISHWAR DAYAL SON OF PARMAL SINGH RESIDENT OF A- 25, P.S. VIVEK BIHAR, JHILMILI COLONY, DELHI, VILLAGE- BUDHERA, P.O. BARUT, P.S.- BENOALI, DISTT.- MURAT BAGH PATH (U.P.). . . . . . APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F. C.G.O. COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 45 BN. C.R.P.F., PATNA, BIHAR. 5. COMMANDANT 95 BN. C.R.P.F., S.B.I. MAIN BRANCH, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND. . . . RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 25.01.2011 Heard Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary for the appellant, and Mr. Sunil Kumar for the respondents. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 5499 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2009, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of dismissal from service has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The appellant was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was convicted by a criminal court in the State of Nagaland for committing unnatural offence on a boy of tender age of 10 years, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court by judgment dated 18.09.2000. This led to the appellant’s dismissal from service. The writ petition has been dismissed on that ground. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 2 extreme penalty of dismissal from service is inconsistent with the mild sentence awarded to him in the criminal trial. He also submits that he has been dismissed without initiating a departmental proceeding against him. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We indeed feel very unhappy that the criminal court in the State of Nagaland has awarded such a light punishment to the appellant in a situation where his guilt of unnatural offence on a boy of tender age of 10 years was well proved by cogent and reliable evidence. We cannot do much about the judgment of the criminal court. However, we do not find it possible to accede to the first submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. He has surely been convicted for unnatural offence on a boy of tender age of 10 years, and the question of sentence becomes an irrelevant issue in the present context. The contention is rejected. 5. The second contention completely overlooks the proviso- (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which provides that a Government servant can be dismissed from service after dispensing with the detailed enquiry, if it is based on the judgment of a conviction against the employee. It is so because the judgment of conviction is by itself complete evidence of culpability of the employee, which per se renders him unfit to continue in service. In the present case, the impugned order of dismissal is based on the appellant’s conviction by a criminal court, and is clearly covered by proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of 3 India. The contention is rejected. 6. The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Uday/ (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)