N PANDURANGA RAO Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF LNDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of respondent-Bank. He was charged with an offence under Section 420 IPC and has been convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He has challenged this judgment by way of an appeal which is pending before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur who has suspended the sentence pending appeal. In the meantime, the department issued a notice to him on 24th August, 1999 asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service in accordance with Regulation 11 of Central Bank of India Officers, Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Regulation reads as under:

(2.) The facts leading to the conviction of the petitioner are that, he cheated some person and received money from him with a promise to provide him a job in the Bank. Similar matter came up before the Supreme Court in Dy. Director of Collegiate Edu. vs. S. Nagoor Meera. In this case also the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced, appeal was pending and in the appeal sentence has been suspended. There was a question before the Supreme Court as to whether the appellate Court can order suspension of sentence and conviction both or only suspend the sentence. But, this question was not specifically answered in view of the mandate of Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said:

(3.) For the reason that the petitioner for all practical purposes is a convict and has been convicted of a criminal charge, the respondents are well within their rights to terminate his services.