- (1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The respondent was working as Superintendent in the office of the Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education, Madurai in 1986. Complaints of corruption were received against him. An enquiry was held into those complaints by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department which opined that the charge was true. Accordingly, the respondent was prosecuted before the Chief Judical Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was that the respondent received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Vijay Kumar promising him to secure a job for him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in addition to fine of Rs. 1,000/- . The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence aforesaid and on 14-2-1991, the court suspended the sentence imposed on the respondent and released him on bail.
(3.) On October 27, 1993 the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education issued a notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in view of his conviction by the criminal court. The show cause notice expressly recites that in as much as the High Court has only suspended the sentence, his conviction is still in force . The notice also recites the nature of the offence for which the respondent was convicted.;