Friday, January 23, 2026

Service Law — Dismissal from service — Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act — Power of Government — Scope A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 — Rules 9(x) and 25(i) — Dismissal from service — Government servant convicted by criminal court — Pendency of criminal appeal — Suspension of sentence — Effect.

advocatemmmohan

Service Law — Dismissal from service — Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act — Power of Government — Scope

A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 — Rules 9(x) and 25(i) — Dismissal from service — Government servant convicted by criminal court — Pendency of criminal appeal — Suspension of sentence — Effect.

Where Government servants were convicted by competent Criminal Courts for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Rule 9(x) read with Rule 25(i) of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules, 1991, dismissed them from service by issuing Government Orders.
— Paras 4 & 5

The writ petitions challenging such Government Orders were allowed by learned Single Judges on the ground that no departmental enquiry was conducted before imposing the major penalty of dismissal.
— Paras 6 & 7

Service Law — Conviction — Departmental enquiry — Necessity

Where punishment of dismissal is imposed on the ground of conduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority is empowered under Rule 25(i) to dispense with enquiry and pass appropriate orders.
— Paras 15 & 17

Non-conduct of departmental enquiry does not vitiate the order of dismissal when the punishment is founded upon conviction by a competent criminal court on charges of corruption.
— Paras 25 & 26

Service Law — Effect of suspension of sentence

Mere suspension of sentence or release on bail during pendency of criminal appeal does not obliterate or render inoperative the conviction recorded by the criminal court.
— Paras 9, 10 & 19

Conviction continues to operate unless it is set aside by the appellate court.
— Para 19

Service Law — Public interest — Corruption charges

Where a public servant is found guilty of corruption after judicial adjudication, public interest demands that such employee should not be continued in service till exonerated by a superior court.
— Paras 20 & 21

Continuation of convicted officers in service would demoralize honest public servants and erode public confidence in institutions.
— Para 20

Service Law — Exercise of power — Fairness and reasonableness

Though the Government is required to exercise its power fairly, justly and reasonably, dismissal of employees convicted of serious corruption offences cannot be held arbitrary merely on the ground that no departmental enquiry was conducted.
— Paras 24 & 25

Service Law — Distinction from Sankar Dass case

The decision in Sankar Dass v. Union of India was held to be distinguishable on facts, as it was an exceptional case where the Magistrate recorded that the accused was a victim of adverse circumstances.
— Paras 23 & 24

Service Law — Reinstatement upon acquittal

If the order of conviction is set aside by the appellate court, the dismissed employee is entitled to seek reinstatement and consequential service benefits.
— Paras 11 & 25

Held

Orders of the learned Single Judges setting aside the dismissal orders were unsustainable and liable to be interfered with.
— Paras 22 & 26

Writ Appeals allowed.
— Para 27

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

Background

Two Government servants:
- Deputy Surveyor
- Industrial Promotion Officer

were convicted by Special Judges for SPE & ACB cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Convictions were recorded in:
- C.C.No.31 of 2015 (04.06.2019)
- C.C.No.20 of 2006 (22.09.2015)
Appeals were filed against convictions and sentences were suspended.

Government Action

State Government invoked:
- Rule 9(x) — dismissal as major penalty
- Rule 25(i) — special procedure on conviction
Issued:
- G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 09.08.2019
- G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 19.05.2016

dismissing the employees from service.

Writ Proceedings

Learned Single Judges set aside the Government Orders holding that:
- dismissal is a major penalty,
- no enquiry was conducted,
- hence action was unsustainable.
State preferred writ appeals.

ANALYSIS OF LAW

Statutory Framework

Rule 25(i), APCCA Rules permits dismissal:

“Where penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge…”

Rule 9(x) mandates dismissal in proved cases of corruption.

Binding Supreme Court Law Applied

Nagoor Meera (1995)
Conviction continues even if sentence is suspended.
K.C. Sareen (2001)
Public interest requires that convicted corrupt officers should not hold public office.
J. Ganesh (2023 AP DB)
Government is empowered to dismiss convicted employees under CCA Rules.

Division Bench Precedent

Earlier Division Bench judgment (W.P.No.8000 of 2009 batch) categorically held:

disciplinary authority has power to dismiss upon conviction;
pendency of criminal appeal is irrelevant;
suspension of sentence does not dilute conviction.

— Paras 16 & 17

COURT’S FINDINGS

Conviction by competent criminal court is sufficient foundation.
Departmental enquiry is not mandatory in such cases.
Government Orders showed application of mind.
Public interest overrides continuation in service.
Single Judge orders ignored binding Division Bench and Supreme Court precedents.

RATIO DECIDENDI

A Government servant convicted by a competent criminal court for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be dismissed from service under Rule 9(x) read with Rule 25(i) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, without conducting a departmental enquiry, and pendency of criminal appeal or suspension of sentence does not render the conviction inoperative.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN