- (1.) The issue involved in this Special Civil Application can be disposed of at the motion stage itself. The issue is whether a service of a convicted employee can be terminated in spite of the fact that the appeal against his conviction has been admitted by the appellate Court for consideration and sentence has been suspended.
(2.) The matrix of the case giving rise to the issue deserves brief notice. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under S.13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Anti- Corruption Bureau Act, 1988 (sic.) and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100.00. The respondent Controller, Food and Civil Supplies, served a notice dated 23-3-1994 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated as he has been convicted and sentenced by the competent Court. The petitioner replied stating that his appeal against the order of conviction is pending before the High Court and the sentence pending appeal has been suspended. However, the respondent by order dated 1-11-1994 dismissed the petitioner from service. He preferred appeal against the said order before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal. By judgment dated 12-6-1995 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
(3.) It seems apt to refer some of the decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court. A Full Bench of this Court in P. D. Waghela v. G. C. Raiger, Deputy I.G.P. , reported in 1993(2) GLH 1005 (FB) : [1994(1) GLR 240 (FB)], dealing with Art. 311(2) clause (a) to the second proviso held that pendency of an appeal or revision against conviction will not alter the position and action taken on the basis of conviction need not conform to clause (2) of Art. 311. The Court also held that the term "conviction" occurring of clause (a) of second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 must be by a competent criminal Court in the first instance. Therefore, once a conviction is recorded by the Court at the first instance, it is open for the disciplinary authority to examine the conduct of the employee which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the authority is not required to wait for the decision of the appellate or revisional Court.;