Petitioners had approached the 1st respondent inter alia stating that though party respondents 3 to 6 were convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code which involves moral turpitude, no departmental action has been taken against them. They have been convicted by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court and revision is pending before the High Court. Only the sentence has been suspended by the High Court in that matter. When the petitioners had taken up the matter before the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P3 the Deputy Superintendent of Police had intimated the petitioners that since the officers are on bail, no further action is contemplated. Against Ext.P3, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent, but still no action had been taken in the matter. Petitioners specifically rely upon second Proviso to Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred as the Rules) and Article 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid provisions read as under: “18. Special procedure in certain cases:-
W.P(C) No. 15538 of 2013 -: 2 :-
xx xx xx Provided further that where a Government Servant is convicted on a criminal charge by a criminal court and sentenced to imprisonment and or with fine,-
(a) he shall be dismissed or removed from service forthwith by invoking the provisions contained in item (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact that an appeal is pending or that the execution of sentence is suspended in respect of the said conviction, xx xx xx”
“311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil service of the Union or a State:-
(1) xx xx xx
(2) xx xx xx Provided further that this clause shall not apply--
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; . . . . .
2. Having regard to the aforesaid Constitutional provision as well as the Rules framed under the Rules aforesaid, there is an obligation on the part of the employer to take appropriate action against the persons convicted in a criminal case.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent inter alia stating that since the conviction of the party respondents had been stayed by this Court, W.P(C) No. 15538 of 2013 -: 3 :-
no action was taken in the matter. There is no case for party respondents 3 to 6 that their conviction had been stayed.
4. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that since their revision petitions are pending before this Court, there is no reason for taking further action in the matter. They have, however, stated that this Court had only stayed the sentence of the party respondents.
5. Having regard to these factual circumstances, apparently, when the statutory provision is clear, respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken necessary action against the delinquent officers. No steps have been taken so far.
6. Under these circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/