Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of the order dated 22.12.2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for each of the offence and further to pay fine of Rs. 10,00/ - for each of the offence. Mr. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as Branch Manager under the establishment of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Deoghar and was put to trial on the allegation of accepting illegal gratification and was convicted. At the same time, for the said charge, the appellant was also put to departmental proceeding whereby punishment has been imposed of reduction of pay and now a notice has been issued to the appellant to show cause as to why not he be removed from the service and that is the reason for the appellant to file an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the order of conviction, as only on the ground that the appellant has been convicted, the department is contemplating to remove the appellant from the service and, therefore, under the circumstances, when the authority does not have any right under Rule to issue such kind of notice, the judgment of conviction be stayed.
(2.) MR . Rai, learned senior counsel further submits that it is true that the appellant has been convicted on a corruption charge, but it can not itself be a complete bar for staying the order of conviction as even in case of conviction on corruption charge, the order of conviction can be stayed but in an exceptional circumstance, which proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai Vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar [ : (2012) 12 SCC 384].
(3.) MR . K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that since the appellant has been convicted on a corruption charge, the judgment of conviction never warrants to be stayed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of K.C. Sareen v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh ( : AIR 2001 SC 3320) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., it be stated that the application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant, as according to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a notice has been served upon the appellant, calling upon him to show cause as to why not, he be removed from the service.;