GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR. versus B. JAGJEEVAN RAO

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 12-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 523 
GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR. 
v. 
8. JAGJEEVAN RAO 
(Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2009) 
MAY 12, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991 - Rule 25 - Interpretation 
C 
of -
Imposition of sentence by disciplinary authority -
Consideration of - Held: Disciplinary Authority is to consider 
the conduct of Government servant that led to his conviction 
on criminal charge before imposing the appropriate 
punishment -
In view of the expected standard of o 
administration, conviction on the charge of corruption is to be 
viewed seriously - Employer cannot be compelled to take an 
employee back in service unless conviction is set aside - On 
facts, employee convicted for the offences punishable under 
the 1988 Act- On application u/s. 389(1) Cr.P.C., suspension 
E 
of sentence by High Court, though not directed stay of 
conviction -
Order of dismissal of employee by the 
Department, invoking power ulr. 25 upheld by the tribunal but 
set aside by High Court - High Court erred in its interpretation 
of r. 25(1) and in not keeping in mind the distinction between 
F 
stay of conviction and suspension of sentence, thus, order 
passed by the High Court set aside - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 311 (2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389(1). 
The respondent was convicted for the offences G 
punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
An application was filed u/s. 389(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court 
directed suspension of sentence. No order of stay of 
conviction was passed. After the order of conviction was 
523 
H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A passed, the Department dismissed the respondent from 
service, invoking power under Rule 25 of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) 
Rules, 1991. The tribunal upheld the order of dismissal. 
In writ petition, the High Court held that when the 
criminal appeal was pending for adjudication and there 
B was suspension of sentence, the Department could not 
have passed an ord1~r of dismissal and set aside the 
order of dismissal. Hence the instant appeal. 
The question which arose for consideration was 
C whether an inquiry should have been held under Article 
311 (2) of the Constitution, regard being had to the 
scheme of Rule 25(1) 1)f the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: The requirement of the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) 
Rules, 1991, as it seems, is that the conduct of 
Government servant that had led to conviction on the 
criminal charge and the circumstances of the case are to 
be considered by the disciplinary authority before 
E imposing the appropriate punishment. Keeping in view 
the expected standard of administration, conviction on 
the charge of corruptie>n has to be viewed seriously and 
unless the conviction is annulled, an employer cannot be 
compelled to take an employee back in service. 
Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in its interpretation 
F of Rule 25(1) and further committed illegality in not 
keeping in mind the distinction between stay of 
conviction and suspension of sentence as envisaged 
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. The judgment and order 
of the High Court, being sensitively susceptible, is set 
G aside. [Paras 10, 11 and 12] (503-C; 504-C-E] 
The Director of Collegiate Education vs. S. Nagoor 
Meera (1995) 3 SCC 377: 1995 (2) SCR 308 K.C. Sareen 
vs. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 
H 224 Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513: 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. 8. JAGJEEVAN RAO 
525 
1995 (1) SCR 45 Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 A 
SC 1416: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131 Shankar Dass vs. Union 
of India (1985) 2 SCC 358: 1985 (3) SCR 163; The Director 
I of Collegiate Education vs. S. Nagoor Meera (1995) 3 SCC 
377: 1995 (2) SCR 308 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
8 
(1995) 3 sec 377 
Referred to 
Para 5, 10 
c2001 > 6 sec 584 
Referred to 
Para 5, 7 
(1995) 2 sec 513 
Referred to 
Para 6 
AIR 1985 SC 1416 
Referred to 
Para 8 
(1985) 2 sec 358 
Referred to 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 80 
D 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2007 in WP 
No. 16102/2007 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad. 
D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amit K. Nain, T.V. 
Bhaskar Reddy, G.N. Reddy for the Appellants. 
M. Vijaya Bhaskar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Calling in question the le
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.