JAMNA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was Assistant Teacher. He was placed under suspension on 16-2-1990 since he was arrested in a criminal case punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by Sessions Court on 27-1-1992 and sentenced for life imprisonment. Through appeal, he challenged the judgment which was decided by this Court on 4-3-1998. His appeal was partly allowed. He was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) THE petitioner is claiming subsistence allowance till 4-3-1998 when his appeal was decided. His submission is that his conviction could not be taken final until the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, he is to be under suspension and entitled to subsistence allowance. State Administrative Tribunal did not find favour with this claim and rejected O. A. No. 2099 of 1998 by order dated 12-10-1999. For rejecting the claim, SAT placed reliance on two Apex Court decisions in Deputy Director of Education v. S. Nagoor Meera, 1995 SCC (L and S) 686 = AIR 1995 SC 1364 and Union of India v. V. K. Bhaskar, 1998 SCC (L and S) 162, though petitioner rested his claim on order of this Court dated 19-7-1988 in Vishwas Rao v. District Education Officer, Chhindwara and Anr. , passed in M. P. No. 3199 of 1986.

(3.) PETITIONER challenged SAT order through Writ Petition No. 1642 of 2000. During the course of submissions, apart from the decision in Vishwas Rao's case (supra), attention of learned Judges comprising the Division Bench was drawn to another decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M. P. , dated 6-10-1982 in M. P. No 465 of 1982. In these two decisions, the Division Bench took the view that till the appeal is pending before this Court, it could not be said that the accused stood convicted and on that basis, no order of removal could be passed, meaning thereby the order of removal could become operative from the date of judgment in appeal. Therefore, up to the date of judgment in appeal, person would be entitled to subsistence allowance. Learned Judges of the Division Bench doubt the correctness of Division Bench decision mjagdish Prasad's case (supra) in the light of decision of Apex Court in K. C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh [ (2001) 6 SCC 584] and require re-consideration by Larger Bench. This is how the matter comes before us.