AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction under Section,Sentence,,
,Imprisonment,Fine (If deposited),In lieu of fine
222 r/w 120-B of IPC,R.I. for 5 years,Rs.5000/-,6 months R.I.
223 of IPC,R.I. for 2 years,Rs.5000/-,6 months R.I.
The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid",,,
down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of,,,
convic-tion during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the,,,
convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprison-ment in abeyance till the disposal of the,,,
appeal or revision.,,,
(emphasis supplied),,,
Thus, it is in the aforesaid context only that the Apex Court has observed in para 14 as quoted above. The said preposition, in the considered",,,
opinion of this court cannot be applied as a thumb rule in every case of conviction of a government employee and in fact it only allows the leeway to,,,
distinguish it from any other case of conviction.,,,
The case in hand is distinguishable from the K.C.Sareen  (supra) as in the present case, where admittedly the incident of jail break took place in",,,
the intervening night of 6th and 7th February, 2010 where the appellant was posted as Jail Prahari and in his presence an inmate ran away from the",,,
jail and for which the appellant was also suspended from the service vide order dated 29.01.2014 and in the departmental enquiry, a minor penalty was",,,
imposed on him by which one increment was stopped for a period of one year only. On 21.08.2011 the said suspension order was revoked and since,,,
then the appellant was working on his post till the final order of conviciton was passed by the trial Court on 19.05.2018, hence on 19.05.2018 the",,,
petitioner is again kept under suspension.,,,
Thus, even in the departmental enquiry, the negligence or dereliction of his duty on the part of the appellant has been considered as minor",,,
misconduct and his services were not terminated and penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect for one year has been imposed.,,,
Whereas, in case of the other co-accused persons viz.Habib Khan and Gulbadan were terminated.",,,
So far as the decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Sucha Singh Langah (supra) is concerned, it is shorn of necessary",,,
details and does not lay down any preposition of law at all and is not applicable in the present case. In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) also the,,,
preposition is that every case has to be looked into on its own merits while considering an application for suspension of conviction however, the power",,,
to stay the conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible,,,
consequences.,,,
In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that if the conviction of the appellant is not stayed, it would certainly be prejudicial to",,,
his interest as the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time, and even if the appeal is allowed finally, it would already be many",,,
years before such an order would be passed and the appellant would be rendered jobless for all these years as at this juncture of his life where after,,,
the conviction, his chances of getting a fresh employment are quite remote.",,,
As a result, the appellant has made out a case of suspension of conviction hence, the application stands allowed and it is directed that till the next",,,
date of hearing, conviction of the appellant shall remain stayed.",,,
C.C. As per rules.,,,