P.B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) By invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Government in appeal by which the appellate authority vide its order dated 24.8.2007 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority by which the petitioner is removed from the service on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner was subjected to a criminal case for an offence under Sec. 409 I.P.C. and Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption. He was convicted by the Criminal Court and was awarded two years imprisonment. On the basis of the said conviction order, the disciplinary authority initially passed an order at Annexure -4 by which the petitioner was removed from the service. The said order was passed on 23.11.2002. The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal. The appellate authority partly allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The said remand order of the appellate authority is at Annexure -6 in the compilation. The disciplinary authority in its order observed that the petitioner was given opportunity of submitting his case by order dated 19.3.2005 and that the petitioner had not submitted any other material except stating that his sentence was suspended by the High Court in criminal appeal. The disciplinary authority has also considered this aspect. The disciplinary authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as after considering the order of conviction and after following the principles of natural justice, passed an order of removal of the petitioner from the service. Operative part of the order is at page 52. The petitioner thereafter carried the order further in appeal. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that simply because the sentence is suspended, is no ground for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be removed from service in view of his conviction. The appellate authority found that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity by the disciplinary authority, but he has failed to place any material on record. The appellate authority, accordingly, dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 24.8.2007. The aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner is convicted in a corruption case and was awarded sentence for two years. He further submitted that the criminal appeal of the petitioner is admitted by this Court and the petitioner is released on bail by suspending the sentence. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the sentence is suspended by this Court, the department should not have terminated the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that simply because the petitioner is convicted in a criminal case is no ground to remove him from service as the disciplinary authority is required to apply its mind before passing such order.
(3.) In my view, this is thoroughly a misconceived petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is removed from the service on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner is convicted in connection with a serious offence. After the remand of the order by the appellate authority, the disciplinary authority gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considered the material on record and ultimately, the petitioner was removed from the service in view of his conviction. Simply because his sentence is suspended is no ground for coming to the conclusion that the department cannot remove the petitioner in view of his conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner has not produced any material before the disciplinary authority for justifying his case that in spite of his conviction, he should be continued in service. Simply because the sentence is suspended, it cannot be said that the order of conviction is also stayed and it cannot be also said that the petitioner is acquitted from the said case simply because sentence has been suspended in criminal appeal. The department was therefore perfectly justified in passing the impugned order.;