? § V ‘€° {N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W P NO 295?/2003 " PETITIONER : Ramesh Kumar Devangan, aged about 40years, son of Shri Sachchidanand Dewangan, / Handloom Technical Supervisor, Union (Sangh) District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS . State of Chhattisgarh through ts ‘C xv WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22g/227MOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W/ Secretary, Village Industries f if Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, ”gowW/ Raipur 2. The Director of Handloom, Sonakhan Bhawan, Ring Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Shri Ranbir Singh, Govt. Advocate, for thc Stam. The petitionerhas preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Co nstitution of india by which he has challenged the ’order dated 19/5/2003, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner’s cam is that he was serving in the department 01‘ Handloom auntwas working in the Directorate of Handloom. During the tenure of his service, he was suspended from the service for committing the offence under 1 i Section 13(1)(d) read with $ection 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sectiion 120—B of LPIC. and later on he t was convicted by the trial court for the said offencc&.Thc petitioner has preferred an appeal before the High Court i.e. CLA. No.1264/02 and on filing the appeal the order of XI—Hcaz [8/ emém W NEW {A}? W.6.; 0%20 E a; '. m am WW mm mmmW W £5W 3W I”!m W Wit 3/9/2003 Shri R. Pradhan for’ the petitioner. XI—HC—22 W W, ma m W m "; ~ WW vi 200 may mw I conviction and sentence: has been suspended by the High Court on 7/ 1/2003. Copy of the High Court order is ‘ 1V Annexure—P/2. The petitioner has been dismissed Without giving any opportunity of healing or without giving any Show cause notice, therefore, the impugned order is a colourable exercise and iSsued Without any power, which is Violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 3 1 1 of the Constitution of of India. Therefore, the impugned orcler may be quashed. Al have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has beer. passed in Violation of Rule 19 of the MP. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, as the same has been passed Without foHoiving the procedure as envisaged in Rule 14 to 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even no notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 19. Normally, the // XI~HC~22 n»V ‘\ 21’» government is issuing n any order. It is an admitted p convicted ‘ the offencc read with Section 13(2) and Section 120-13 of J undergo imprisonment Rs.5000/- vide judgme Criminal Case No.7/99 i1 Director, Handloom Dire( dismissed the petitioner i As far as the fact concerned, I/have perusex this Court, in which onb fine has been suspended; not been suspended. otiee under Rule 19 before pasSing asition that the petitioner has been punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) 3f the Prevention of Corruption Act .P.C. He has been sentenced to for flve years and pay fine of nt dated 28/ 1 1/2002 passed in 1 crime No. 152/95. Based on that, :Lorate, vide order dated 19/ 5/ 2003 rom service Vide Annexure—P/ l. of suspension of the conviction is i the order Annexure—P/ 2 passed by ' the execution of the sentence and the conviction of the appellant has Therefore, it has been wrongiy we seq mentioned in the writ 1 )etition that the conviction of the petitioner has been Suspe nded. Now coming to the passing the dismissal or Civil Services (Classifmati provides that notwithstar to 18: (i) Where any pel servant on the ground conviction on a criminal may consider the circum orders thereon as it dee Rules, 1966 does not pre employee before passing v conviction on a criminal authorised to paSs orders (a), it lays down that the provisions of clauses (1) and (2) sh z, r question of issuing of notice before der is conceined, Rule 19 of MP. on, Control and Appeal) Rules, ‘1966 ding anything contained in Rule 14 mlty is imposed on a government of conduct which has led to his charge, the disciplinary authority stances of the case and make such ms flt. Therefore, Rule 19 of the scribe any notice to be given to the any order under this rule and for charge the disciplinary authority is as it deems fit. Under Article 3 1 1 (2b not be applicable Where a person is dismissed or removed m conduct which has led to Therefore, when the peti under Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption based on that convictior from service by the Dire this order does not violat Constitution of India or R if the conviction is set as order of the dismissal W1 the petitioner will be entitled for reinstatement or other benefits In View of the above writs petition. The same dismissed. \ Vat g ’ reduced \in rank on the ground of his conviction on a criminal charge. tioner was convicted for the offence read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C. and . the petitioner has been dismissed ctor (disciplinary authority), hence e the provisions of Article 31 10f the ulo 19 of the Rules, 1966. However, ‘idelby the appellate court, then the n automatically cease to effect and ,, I do not find any substance in the is liable to be dismissed and it is Sd/— L.C.BHAD00 ‘ Judge /’ {w .é4f7%\wwwg§ t em? Mew ’\\ XI-HC-22 "\ ma mm WW WW mm$t¥xfga _ g’ mwm @W $a1F-q'qm