THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATION), MADRAS versus S. NAGOOR MEERA

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION 
(ADMINISTRATION), MADRAS 
v. 
S. NAGOOR MEERA 
.B 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
[B.P JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Arl. 311(2) second proviso clause(a}-
Conduct of Govememnt servant led to his conviction on a criminal charge-
C Taking action not barred merely because the sentence is suspended. 
Service Law : Government Servant-Initiation of proceedings against-
Dismissal from service-Show cause notic~onduct of Government servant 
relevant-Suspension of sentence-Action not barred-Delay in initiating 
proceedings after conviction-Held, does not vitiate the proceedings-Oppor-
D tunity to be afforded to Govt. Servant to explain and then to pass appropriate 
orders-Directions issued . 
.e 
The Respondent was working as Superintendent in the Office of 
Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education. On charges of corruption, 
he was prosecuted and convicted under S. 420 IPC and S. S of the 
E Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of 
Rs. 1000. The charge was that he had received Rs. 10,000 from a person 
promising him a job. On appeal, the High Court s~spended the sentence 
and released him on bail. 
I 
)-
F 
The appellant-employer issued a show cause notice to the Respon-
~ 
dent as to why he should not be dismissed from service in view of his 
conviction by the Criminal Court. The notice also stated that though the 
sentence was suspended still the conviction was in force. 
· y 
The Respondent moved the State Administrative Tribunal which 
G quashed the show cause notice. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. speaks of suspending "the execution 
of the sentence or order", it does not expressly speak of suspension of 
H conviction. Even so, it may be possible to say that in certain situations, the 
308 
/ 
)' 
·~ 
DY. DIR OFC01LEGIA1E EDN. v. S.N. MEERA[B.P.JEEV AN REDDY, J.)309 
appellate court may also have the power to suspend the conviction. How-
A 
ever, what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) 
is the "conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge" and 
there can be no question of suspending the conduct. Taking proceedings 
for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a 
Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not 
barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate 
court or on the ground that the said government servant-accused has been 
released on bail pending the appeal. [312-D, 313-D-E] 
B 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A convicted the respondent, has been properly explained - and in any event, 
the delay is not such as to vitiate the action taken. (315-A] 
5. Since the appellant himself has chosen to issue a show cause notice 
to the respondent before passing orders under Clause (a) of the second 
proviso to Art. 311(2), the respondent is given four weeks' time to submit 
B his explanation. The appellant is free to pass such orders thereafter as 
may be found appropriate in the circumstances. (315-C) 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2992 of 
1995. 
( 
Froni the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.94 of the Tamil Nadu 
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6851 of 1994. 
A. Mariarputham for Routham Aruna & Co. for the Appellants. 
A.V. Rangam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the 
parties. 
.. 
The respondent was working as Superintendent in the office of the 
Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education, Madurai in 1986. Com-
plaints of corruption were received against him. An enquiry was held into 
those complaints by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department which 
opined that the charge was true. Accordingly, the respondent was 
F prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted 
the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was that the respondent 
received a sum of Rs. 10,000 from one Vijay Kumar promising him to 
secure a job for him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
G for one year in addition to fine of Rs. 1,000. The respondent filed an appeal 
in the High Court against the conviction and sentence aforesaid and on 
14.2.1991, the court suspended the sentence imposed on the respondent 
and released him

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.