S MAHABOOB BASHA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to different sentences for different charges. An appeal has been filed by him which has been admitted and the sentence has been suspended, he was also granted bail. But, the petitioner wants that the conviction should be suspended so that he is not removed from service. He relies on a judgment of Supreme Court being Ram Narang vs. Ramesh Narang. At pages 524 and 525 of the judgment the power of the appellate Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was discussed by the Supreme Court as under:

(2.) After this judgment, however, another judgment came being Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) vs. S. Nagoor Meera which gave a new dimension to the power of suspension of conviction. The Supreme Court tried to interpret Sec. 389 (1) in the context of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the matter before the Supreme Court concerned a Public Officer. In the present case, we are concerned with an employee of the State Road Transport Corporation. The Supreme Court in that judgment held that, it is the conduct of the person which leads to his conviction that makes him liable to be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. Therefore, even if conviction of a Government employee is suspended, he can still be removed from service under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the conduct which led to his conviction could not be suspended. The important factor to be taken into consideration while exercising power under Article 311 (2) was not the effect of conviction but the conduct leading to conviction. The Supreme Court further suggested as an appropriate course that, in matters where a Government servant is convicted and his appeal is pending, the appropriate authority should not wait for the result of the appeal but should proceed under Article 311 (2) for removal, dismissal or reduction in rank and if such Government servant succeeds in the appeal the order of the Government passed under Article 311 (2) can be revised and such Government servant can be made entitled to all the benefits which would be available to him in law.

(3.) Since the law is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court now the only question remains is, whether the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation has any rule which could empower the respondents to remove the petitioner from service on the basis of conduct which led to his conviction, in other words, is there a provision in the Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations applicable to the petitioner para materia to Article 311 (2). Regulation No. 9(1) of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations lays down among other things, that the employee is liable to be dismissed from service in the following circumstances, namely (a) conviction by a Court on a criminal charge; or (b) serious misconduct; (other clauses not relevant). Regulation 9(2) lays down that an employee shall be liable to be removed from service in the following circumstances, namely (a) committing an offence for which he is liable to be dismissed under Clause (1) above; or (b) misconduct; other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of the present case, the Constitution makes conviction in an offence to be misconduct. Therefore, reading regulations 9(1) and 9(2) together, it is clear that, power is given to the respondents to remove or dismiss an employee who is convicted in a case. It is also clear that, the respondents have the power to remove or dismiss an employee from service if misconduct is proved against him. The Supreme Court in the Judgment Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) vs. S. Nagoor Meera (2 supra) while dealing with the power of Appellate Court whether it could suspend the conviction, or not, as was laid down in Ram Narang vs. Ramesh Narang (1 supra) further stated that, in such cases other factors were relevant. In para 10 it is stated;