2025:UHC:5813-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/168/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/ respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. This intra-court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 02.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 847 of 2025. By the said judgment, appellant’s claim for reinstatement in service was rejected on the ground that appellant did not prefer any appeal within period of limitation. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was convicted by a criminal Court for offence punishable under Section 498A/34 & 304B/34 IPC and was sentenced to ten years. Based on the conviction by criminal Court, appellant was terminated from service. After completing the sentence, he approached the employer with a request to reinstate him. His request for reinstatement was rejected on the ground that it is time barred. Thus feeling aggrieved, appellant filed writ petition, which has been dismissed. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere 2025:UHC:5813-DB with the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “311 (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 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) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that a Government servant can be dismissed or removed from service based on his conviction by a criminal Court and in such cases, departmental enquiry is not needed. 7. Appellant’s conviction has been upheld 2025:UHC:5813-DB right upto Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, it attained finality, therefore, his request for reinstatement made before the employer merely on the ground that he has undergone the sentence, was misconceived. Appellant could not have been reinstated in service in the face of his conviction by a criminal Court, that too for a serious offence. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, any interference in the matter would be unwarranted. 9. Special Appeal thus fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f4 87df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.14 10:14:05 +05'30'