HARI KRISHAN HIRANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was employed as Appraiser in the Customs Department. He was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120 B, 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Special Judge. THE Special Judge, Mumbai vide his order dated 26.6.1997 convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer 7 years R.I. and also to pay a fine of one Lakh or suffer one year R.I. in default. After the conviction order was passed, the applicant moved the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court for bail as well as for suspension of sentence. It was specifically pleaded that conviction will be disqualification in as much as that it would come in the way of the applicant in continuing with his service. THE Mumbai High Court, however, suspended the order of sentence and passed the following order:

(2.) The main ground on which the impugned order is attacked by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that inspite of the Hon'ble High Court suspending the sentence as well as conviction of the applicant, the respondents have invoked the provisions of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules and issued the order of dismissal against the applicant. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant this is illegal, irregular and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that when there was no conviction or sentence passed on the applicant, it was not open to the authorities concerned to issue even a show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why penalty of dismissal or removal should not be imposed on him. According to him, there was no justification for the respondents to issue the impugned order and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside on this sole ground. He has further submitted that the Department had already initiated enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in the year 1984-85 and before that enquiry was finally concluded, the Disciplinary Authority had invoked the provisions of Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules. According to him, it was not open on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to start another enquiry under Rule 19(1) when an enquiry under Rule 14 was already pending. He has also commented on the conduct of the Appellate Authority saying that though the Tribunal had directed the Appellate Authority to give a personal hearing to the applicant, no such personal hearing was given and the Appellate Authority has without application of mind rejected the appeal of the applicant. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 513, it was emphatically submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Hon'ble High Court has not only suspended the sentence but also suspended the conviction of the applicant and as such the impugned order is vitiated.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsellor both the parties and duly considered the rival contentions.