LPA No. 1183 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1183 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.09.2010 Satish Kumar ......Appellant/Writ Petitioner Vs State of Haryana through its Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department, New Delhi, New Mini Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandigarh and another. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Gurjinder Singh Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant/writ petitioner. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. The appellant/writ petitioner, a Patwari was convicted, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 04/06.08.2009. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively alongwith fine. Following the conviction of the appellant/writ petitioner, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 17.05.2010. The dismissal of the appellant/writ petitioner was preceded by a show cause notice dated 03.02.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the writ petition in question was instituted contending, interalia, that the dismissal of the LPA No. 1183 of 2010 (O&M) 2 appellant/writ petitioner without holding any inquiry is unjustified. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, inquiry can be dispensed with in a situation where the penalty that is sought to be imposed is founded on the conviction of the delinquent government servant in a criminal case. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has reiterated the argument earlier advanced and has also pointed out that an appeal against his conviction is presently pending in this Court. We have noticed that in the appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against his conviction, this Court has merely suspended the sentence and not the conviction. Under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the requirement of holding an inquiry before imposition of any penalty can be dispensed with by the employer if the penalty that is sought to be imposed is on the ground of conviction of the government servant in a criminal case. This is precisely happened in the present case. That apart, in the present case the appellant/writ petitioner was found by the Criminal Court to have been caught red handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 2500/- in exchange for certain favours pertaining to his official duties. The contention of the learned Counsel that the appellant/writ petitioner may be acquitted in the appeal filed by him will not assist the appellant/writ petitioner, in any manner, in as much as, in that event, all reliefs that would be due in law may be accorded to the appellant/writ petitioner. The possible acquittal of the appellant/writ petitioner in the criminal LPA No. 1183 of 2010 (O&M) 3 case is an uncertain future event which cannot form basis of any order of the Court to interfere with the dismissal of the appellant/writ petitioner. Consequently and for the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 21.09.2010 JUDGE Amodh