Ujagar Singh, J. - (1.) This Civil Writ Petition is for quashing the order dated 15.3.89, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Ferozepore Canal Circle, Ferozepore (Annexure P.5), vide which the petitioner, who was working as Accounts Clerk, was dismissed from service and also debarred from further Government employment under Rule 5)9) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, without prejudice.
(2.) The facts are that the petitioner was prosecuted under section 5(l)(d) read with s. 5(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as also u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code. On the first count, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment thereof, to suffer further RI for three months and on the second hand also, a sentence of RI for one year was imposed on him. Both the sentences were made concurrent, vide order dated 2.5.86 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 319-SB of 1986 before this Court which was admitted on 14.5.1986. Bail was granted to him till disposal of the same. Thereafter he again moved an application in this Court on 9.12.1986, praying that pending his appeal, the sentence awarded to him may be suspended under the provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was accepted by S.S. Sodhi, J. on 10.12.1986 and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended.
(3.) On 11.1.1989 the Superintending Engineer passed order (Annexure P1), requiring the petitioner to show cause, why he should not be dismissed from Government Service under Rule 5(9) of the aforementioned Rules. Reply by the petitioner was directed to reach the Office within 15 days of the receipt of notice. The petitioner brought the facts of his having been allowed bail, pending disposal of appeal and suspension of his sentence by this Court, vide his explanation dated 30.1.89 (Annexure P2). Despite the same, the Superintending Engineer, vide order dated 9.2.1989 (Annexure P3), held that the reply had been considered unsatisfactory and as such, the same could not be accepted. The petitioner was asked to avail of an opportunity of personal hearing before making any further orders by the Superintending Engineer (Annexure P3). Again, the petitioner filed his explanation Annexure P4 on 24.5.1989. Ultimately holding that suspension of sentence does not wash away the conviction awarded to the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer dismissed him from service.;