2025:JHHC:36018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2442 of 2021 ------ Arun Kumar, son of late Saryug Kumar, resident of village Laugain, P.O and P.S. Amarpur, District- Baka (Bihar) … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Ms. Surbhi Rani, AC to SC-II ------ 08/02.12.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- (i) To quash and set aside the notification contained in memo No. nig/sara (path)-5237/2003-1554(s) dated 22.6.2021 (Annexure-3), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. (ii) During the pendency of this writ petition, operation, execution and implementation of notification contained in Memo No. nig/sara (path)-5237/2003-1554(s) dated 22.6.2021 (Annexure-3) may kindly be stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been dismissed from service by invoking Article 311(2) proviso (a) of the Constitution of India yet there should have been an application of mind as to why the order of dismissal was passed. He further submits that Article 311 of the Constitution provides for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, thus the respondents should have given reason as to why they choose to dismiss the petitioner from service and not to reduce him in rank. As per him, there should have been an independent consideration on this aspect, it was necessary to be reflected in the order itself. He further submits that since there was no consideration by the authority as to why, the Disciplinary Authority has chosen to dismiss the petitioner from service and did not choose to impose other punishment i.e. reduction in rank, the impugned order of dismissal needs to be set aside. He also submits that in same and similar matter i.e. in the case of Shankar Dass Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1985) 2 SCC 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reinstated the employee when there was alleged financial irregularity, thus similar treatment was given to this petitioner and he may be reinstated. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been convicted and his conviction attains finality. He also submits that since the petitioner is a convict, he is not entitled to get any benefit. It is their case that the dismissal is the only punishment, which can be reflected on the facts of this case. 5. The facts lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in National Rural Development Department Programmer (NREP), Government of Jharkhand. He was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs.3,500/-. A vigilance case being Vigilance Special Case No. 16/2003 was instituted under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After a proper trial, the petitioner was convicted in the aforesaid case and has been sentenced for two years of imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He preferred criminal appeal before this Court being Cr.A (SJ) No. 1374 of 2018. The said criminal appeal also stood dismissed. The counsel during course of argument admitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 38975 of 2024 did not grant leave, rather dismissed the leave petition. The aforesaid fact clearly suggest that the conviction of this petitioner stood confirmed and has attained finality. The employer thereafter by invoking Article 311(2) proviso (a) dismissed the petitioner from service. This order is under challenge. 6. Proviso (a) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution provides that where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct, which has lead his conviction on criminal charge, it is not necessary to apply the mandate of Article 311(1)(2) of the Constitution. This means that if a person is convicted of criminal charge, he can be out rightly dismissed from service without an enquiry and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard. Article 311 of the Constitution reads as under:- 311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. 1. …......... 2. No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be -2- imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: 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; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. 3. ….......... 7. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has been convicted for accepting bribe and his conviction has attained finality. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shankar Dass (Supra) which the learned counsel for the petitioner is referring, does not fit in the facts of this case. In that case, the convict- Shankar Dass was the Incharge of the Cash, wherein he had to deposit the cash, which was received by him. He deposited Rs.1107.99 out of Rs.1607.99, which he had received. Though he was convicted in a criminal case for defalcation, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was compelling circumstances in not depositing the balance amount and there was much adverse circumstances also. Shankar Dass (Supra) was not a case of accepting bribe. In this case, the conviction of this petitioner is for accepting bribe and involving in corrupt practice. Corruption in public in these days has dented the fabric of the country. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Kishnan Behari, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 714 has held that no sympathy can be shown in the cases of corruption. It has also been held that in the case of corruption, dismissal from service is the only punishment. 8. Since the petitioner is a convict in a case involving taking of bribe, which is one of the worst forms of corruption, involving moral turpitude, he has been correctly dismissed. Thus, I find no merit in this petition to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. 2nd December, 2025 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 03.12.2025. -3-.