HEERALAL AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was caught red handed and accordingly an offence under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and by judgment dtd. 16/3/2022 passed by the Special judge (P.C.Act) Rewa in Special Case (Lok) No.5/2019, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of four years with fine of Rs.2,000.00. It is submitted that now the respondents have stopped making payment of provisional pension and they have also not released the leave encashment. It is further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.2829/2022 and the sentence of the petitioner has been suspended. Since appeal is continuation of trial, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue to receive the provisional pension as provided under Rule 64 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Rules'.

(3.) Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is true that appeal is continuation of trial but the provisions of Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules would not apply because after conviction, the petitioner has to face the disqualification attached to the conviction unless and until the conviction is stayed. By taking guidance from Order 42 Rule 5 CPC it is submitted that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as a stay. It is further submitted that if a decree is passed and the execution of the same is not stayed then the decree is executable in spite of the fact that the appeal is pending. Similarly, in the case of conviction, the accused/delinquent employee has to face the disqualification attached to the conviction unless and until they are stayed. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which provides that filing of appeal would automatically operate as stay of conviction. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh, reported in (2001)6 SCC 584, has held that in the case of Prevention of Corruption Act, the conviction should not be stayed. Thus, the disqualification which is attached to the conviction has to be faced by the petitioner and even the provisions of Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules would not apply.