Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice Rekha Palli of Delhi High Court passed a judgement in the matter of Santosh Kumar v. Delhi Jal Board, that suspension of sentence, pending an appeal, doesn’t imply a suspension of the order of conviction. It is held that in a criminal trial if a convict has been granted bail or suspension of his sentence pending his appeal, that doesn’t mean that his conviction ceases to operate.
In this case, petitioner was convicted of an offence under section 363, 366, 368 and 376 of India Penal Code, however filing of an appeal, the appellate court suspended his sentence and granted him bail pending his appeal. Meanwhile, the Delhi Jal Board relieved the appellant of his service. Aggrieved by his termination, he raised an industrial dispute which came to be rejected after the Labour Court found that the disciplinary authority had, after considering the relevant factor, rightly reached its conclusion. Hence, the present writ was filed.
Petitioner counsel argued that even though the petitioner appeal is still pending adjudication before the High Court, once his sentence stands suspended and he has been released on bail, the respondent is duty-bound to take him back in service as the effect of the said suspension, would tantamount to the order of conviction and sentence being treated as non est.
The court rejected the claim of the petitioner by relying upon the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors v, Ramesh Kumar[1], which says that:
“If the Disciplinary Authority comes to the conclusion that the offence for which the public servant has been convicted was such as to retention in the public service prima facie undesirable, it can impose upon him under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from service as may be considered appropriate, with reference to the gravity of offence, without holding any enquiry or giving him a show-cause notice as provided in proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.”
The court said that Delhi Jal Board claim is justified that further retention of the petitioner in service was undesirable. A cost of Rs. 10,000 has imposed upon the petitioner.
[1] AIR 1997 SC 531
86540
103860
630
114
59824