Departmental Inquiry Not Needed After Bribery Conviction Of Govt Employee: MP High Court Upholds Dismissal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the plea of an ex-government employee against dismissal from service, observing that a detailed departmental inquiry is not necessary once a government employee has been convicted due to his conduct in a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat observed;
"Detailed departmental enquiry is not necessary as sufficient opportunity has already been granted to an employee in a criminal case to defend herself. Principal of natural justice is a fundamental right under Constitution and same is to be observed in all cases. But in cases where employee has been convicted on basis of conduct in criminal case with full opportunity of hearing, it will be against public interest and efficiency in public services to grant her second opportunity of hearing on same facts and circumstances".
The petition was filed challenging the order of June 21 2021, passed by the Institutional Finance Commissioner of Bhopal.
Per the facts, the petitioner was trapped by the Lokayukta in a bribery case and later convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs 25,000. Thereafter, action was taken against him under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also contended that a criminal appeal against conviction was pending and therefore the judicial proceedings had not attained finality, and therefore no departmental enquiry imposing penalty could be imposed.
The bench noted that dismissal from service under Rule 10(ix) of the 1996 Rules amounts to a major penalty. Further, Rule 19 carves an exception to Rules 14 to 18, and a penalty can be imposed upon a government employee upon his conviction on a criminal charge due to his conduct. The Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the cases and make an order that it deems fit, and where necessary, the commissioner shall be consulted.
Relying on the case of Union of India v Tulsiran Paten [AIR 1985 SC 146], the court reiterated that no fresh inquiry is required once a government employee is convicted in a criminal case. The punishment can be decided based on the conduct that led to the conviction.
The court, in the present case, observed that disciplinary authority had considered the facts of the criminal case and found that it was a case of moral turpitude as the petitioner was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court, before concluding the case, noted that a detailed departmental inquiry is not necessary as sufficient opportunity was provided to the employee in a criminal case to defend themselves.
The bench further highlighted,
"Natural justice can not be stretched to an extent to practically defeat justice, public interest, weeding out of unbecoming public servants and to provide opportunity to delinquent employee to abuse process and avoid delivery of justice in large interest of public and State".
Therefore, the bench dismissed the petition and upheld the order dismissing her from service.
Case Title: Ratnawali Vanshwati v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-20253-2022]
For Petitioner: Advocate Om Shankar Pandey
For State: Advocate Supriya Singh