Corruption conviction justifies dismissal from service without further show-cause or consideration of lesser punishment.

Dismissal of a public servant convicted of corruption was sustained because the conviction itself supplied the basis for action under the constitutional exception in Article 311(2). The authority was not required to give a further opportunity to show cause before imposing dismissal, and failure to consider a lesser punishment did not invalidate the order on these facts. A corruption conviction justified dismissal as an appropriate service consequence, and no reduced penalty needed to be contemplated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of a public servant convicted of corruption could be set aside for want of a further opportunity to show cause or on the ground that the authority should have considered a lesser punishment.

Analysis: The dismissal was founded on the respondent's conviction for corruption offences. The order was made under the service rules referable to proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In such a case, the conviction itself furnished the basis for dismissal. The requirement that the authority should consider whether some lesser punishment might be imposed did not assist the respondent on these facts, because a conviction for corruption justified dismissal and no lesser penalty was contemplated as appropriate.

Conclusion: The dismissal was valid and could not be interfered with on the ground of inadequate opportunity or failure to consider a lesser punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public servant is convicted for corruption, dismissal from service is a permissible and appropriate consequence, and no lesser punishment need be contemplated under the constitutional exception permitting dismissal on conviction.

---