UMASHANKAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 2 (1) of the M. P. Uchcha nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the pregnability of the order dated 22-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no. 2151/2007 (S) is called in question in this writ appeal.

(2.) THE facts which are imperative to be ex-posited are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') challenged the issuance of notice to show cause 25/31-1-2007 invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The show-cause notice was to the effect that why the services of the appellant should not be dispensed with inasmuch as he had been convicted under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special case No. 3/2005. It was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that after being convicted on 29-9-2005 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court forming the subject matter of Cr. A. No. 1895/2006 wherein this Court admitting the appeal directed suspension of sentence and granted bail to the appellant therein.

(3.) IT was contended before the learned Single Judge when the appellant had been convicted and thereafter enlarged on bail, the respondents were not justified in issuing the notice to show cause for the purpose of termination from service. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision rendered in the cases of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2004 (4) M. P. H. T. 343, Union of India and others Vs. Ramesh kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3531, Jamna Prasad Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2003 (1)M. P. H. T. 77 and K. C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584 and expressed the opinion that the issue of show-cause notice to the appellant was within the parameters of law and did not warrant interference.