Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14th September 2004 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India imposing penalty of removal upon the petitioner in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) of L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1960) on the basis of his conviction in ST. No. 475 of 99 under Section 302/307/504/506, I.P.C. vide judgment dated 8th June 2004; and the appellate order dated 10th February 2005 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Zonal Manager rejecting petitioner's appeal of Life Insurance Corporation of India.
(2.) The brief factual matrix relevant for the disposal of the matter as disclosed in the writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Higher Grade Assistant in Badaun Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the L.I.C.), He was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1999 under Sections 302/307/504/506 I.P.C. and the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 Bareilly vide its judgment dated 8th June, 2004 convicted the petitioner awarding sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner appealed vide Criminal Appeal No. 3126 of 2004 before this Court and while admitting criminal appeal, this Court vide order dated 10th June 2004 passed an interim order releasing the petitioner on bail and realisation of fine was also stayed. Proceeding on the basis of conviction, the respondents placed the petitioner under suspension on 16th June 2004 and a show cause notice was issued on 17th June 2004 as to why he may not be removed from service in pursuance to his conviction aforesaid. Consequently the petitioner again approached this Court and the order dated 10th June 2004 was further modified by this Court's order dated 14th July 2004 and the sentence was also stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: The sentence so awarded to the accused appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
(3.) The petitioner submitted reply dated 22nd July 2004 explaining the entire facts and pointing out that since the sentence itself has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in appeal, therefore the proceedings may be dropped during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court seeking further modification in the order dated 14th July 2004 and vide order dated 1st October 2004 the Hon'ble Court modified its earlier order dated 14th July 2004 adding the words 'the conviction' therein resulting in that the conviction and sentence both were stayed by this Court. However, respondent No. 3 in the meantime proceeded further and referring to the petitioners conviction as aforesaid imposed punishment of removal vide order dated 14th September 2004. The petitioner claims that the said order was displayed on the notice board for the first time on 5th October 2004. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal vide Memo of Appeal dated 29th October 2004 and the same has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10th February 2005.;