BALAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a publ ic servant, working as Deputy Tasi ldar at Chikkodi. He was prosecuted in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 ("the Act" for short) for the offences punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. After trial, the learned Special Judge, Belgaum, found him guilty vide judgment dated 29.10.2011. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and payment of f ine. He preferred Crl.A. No.2877/2011 and in the said appeal I.A.1/2011 was f iled seeking the order of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2011 passed in Special C.C.No.13/2005 be suspended and he be released on bail. On 22.11.2011, it was ordered as follows:

(2.) In view of the judgment of conviction, 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 25.5.2012, call ing upon the petitioner to submit his reply as to why he cannot be dismissed from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classif ication, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957. Questioning the said show cause notice, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, contending that in view of the order of stay passed on 22.11.2011 in Crl.A.2877/2011, the show cause notice is arbitrary and illegal. The appl ication having been dismissed on 30.8.2013, this writ petition has been f iled.

(3.) Sri Santosh B Malagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in view of the interim order of stay passed in Crl.A.2877/2011, the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent as to why the petitioner's service be not terminated being arbitrary and illegal, the Tribunal has committed material error and illegal ity in dismissing the appl ication. He submitted that, if the writ petition is not entertained, the petitioner's service would be terminated by the 2nd respondent on the strength of the said judgment of conviction.