DINA BANDHU MONDAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was convicted by Criminal Court under sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Against the order of conviction an appeal was preferred where the writ petitioner was granted bail. After the order of conviction, the writ petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 2nd December, 2000 appearing at page 20 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner challenged the said show-cause notice on the ground since he had granted bail and since the subject issue is pending in appeal the show-cause notice is bad and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Mr. R.N. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent authority, submits that since the order of conviction has already been passed against the writ petitioner pendency of an appeal cannot operate as bar in proceeding against the writ petitioner in terms of the said show-cause notice. In support of his contention, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Advocate, has relied on a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1364 and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Shib Nath Bodhak v. The Bank of India & Ors. Headnote 'A' of the apex Court decision has been relied upon by Mr. Mazumdar which is quoted as follows :

(3.) The apex Court was of the view that even if the delinquent suffers the order of dismissal due to such conviction and even if he succeeds ultimately in appeal he has right to be reinstated. The apex Court was of the view that since the conviction is a serious offence it is not desirable that the delinquent should continue in service.