IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4298 of 2004 ARUN KUMAR SINGH, son of Ram Pravesh Singh, resident of village –Sundra, P.O. Sarathuwa, P.S. Chandi, District – Bhojpur. ________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. 4. The S.P. Aurangabad. _________ Respondents ----------- 03. 19.7.2010 Petitioner was a constable and posted in the district of Aurangabad. He has now been dismissed from service since he was convicted for life by the trial court in Koilwar P S Case No. 19 of 1980. That order of conviction and sentence stood modified by the High Court but a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment still stood against the petitioner. In the year 1999, to be precise on 6.11.1999, petitioner proceeded on 21 days leave and did not report back. When matter was inquired into it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that during the period of leave petitioner had surrendered in trial court and was remanded to Buxar Central Jail after his conviction. The factum of the petitioner being involved in the criminal case or the subsequent conviction was never conveyed to the respondent authorities. Based on that information notice was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was also initiated and finally the factum of conviction having been found to be true, petitioner was dismissed from service. His appeal against the said order was also upheld. Now 2 he is before the court of law challenging the said decision. Since the petitioner has been released from jail after serving his sentence he wants to come back on the job. The ground for challenge of the order of dismissal is that the incident which led to institution of the criminal case and his subsequent conviction was a private affair. He used his right of private defence due to fight over a property with his agnates and such action cannot be termed to be related to his conduct or responsibility as a government servant. If the allegation is not related to the official duty, then he has right to be reinstated and the order of dismissal ought to be set aside. The other submission is that the petitioner did not gate appropriate opportunity to defend himself as the departmental proceeding was going on while he was in judicial custody. Some of the submissions would have merited consideration by this Court if the factum of conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case was held to be not true. There is no denial that the petitioner was convicted for murder and sentenced to life by the trial court. However, the order of sentence stood modified to 5 years and conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. A conviction by a criminal court for a serious charge does empower the State to dismiss an employee on the ground of conviction alone. Article 311 of the Constitution of India itself provides an exception to the general rule of enquiry. 3 In absence of any pleading that the conviction stood altered or interfered with by any superior court, the fact stands that the petitioner was convicted, he had to undergo sentence for 5 years and then he was released from judicial custody. This fact is good enough for the respondents to dismiss the petitioner from service. None of the submissions urged at the bar will come to his rescue. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)