Listen to this article|
No question of double jeopardy arises when a government employee is terminated from service as consequence of conviction by Trial Judge |
|||
|
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah |
|||
|
Civil Appeal No. 1804 of 2020 decided 25.2.2020 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/10865/10865_2019_8_1501_20883_Judgement_25-Feb-2020.pdf |
|||
|
Bench |
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachudand and Hemant Gupta, JJ |
||
|
Fact |
|||
|
The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer by the appellant. On 16 February 1996, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent containing allegation of corruption and was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Appellant issued a show notice of termination from service to respondent. However, the appellant was directed not to issue final orders against respondent during the pendency of the appeal in High Court against his conviction for offences. Hence, aggrieved by the same order of High Court, appellant approached this court. |
|||
|
Question of law |
Whether a government employee is terminated from service as consequence of conviction by Trial Judge? |
||
|
Argument Advanced
|
|||
|
Appellant |
Respondent |
||
|
No question of double jeopardy that attracts the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution can arise in a situation where the service regulations empower the employer to proceed against the employee upon his conviction on a criminal charge; The High Court by directing the appellant from refraining from taking any action against the respondent pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has erroneously interfered with the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the appellant |
The underlying facts on the basis of which the disciplinary enquiry was instituted and the criminal prosecution took place are identical; The appellant having imposed a penalty in the course of the disciplinary proceedings by reducing the respondent’s basic pay to the minimum of the time scale has exhausted its disciplinary jurisdiction and is not entitled to issue a fresh notice to show cause for removal from service |
||
|
Held |
|||
|
The Supreme Court refuting the argument of double jeopardy said that proceedings for or passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said government servant-accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. The Supreme Court citing the case of K C Sareen v CBI held that a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking the system itself |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||