UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI RAMESH KUMAR

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 02-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI RAMESH KUMAR 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Convictio!t-Conviction of govemment employee 011 a criminal charge 
C of illegal gratification-Dismissal from the service without holding proper 
enquiry-Criminal appeal against conviction pending-Employee filing ap-
plication for reinstatement-Tribunal allowing the application-Held, the 
employee has no right to be reinstated in service when his appeal against 
conviction is admitted and execution of sentence suspended during the pen-
dency of appeal-<XA (CCS) Rules, 1965, Rule 19(i)-Vigilence Manual, 
D Chapter VII, paras 15.2 and 15.3--Prevention of Corrnption Act, 1947, Sec-
tion 5(2). 
Rei11statement-Right to-Held, does not arise on mere filing of appeal 
against the conviction upon which disciplinary action was based-The con-
E viction stands during the pe11dency of the appeal till it is set aside. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
Section 389-Suspension of sentence by the appellate court:-lmplica-
tion of-The sente11ce based 011 the convii:tion gets postponed or is kept in 
F abeyance during pendency of appeal-Conviction however conti11ues till it is 
set aside-Discipli11ary action against the govemment servant based on such 
conviction, held, will stand unimpaired during the pendency of the appeal. 
The respondent, a government employee, was arrested on the ground 
that he accepted illegal gratification and he was placed under suspension. 
G The trial court convicted him for an offence under Section 5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act. As a result of his conviction, the Discipli-
• 
nary Authority dismissed him from service by invoking Rule 19 of the CCS 
(CCA) Rules without holding detailed enquiry. The High Court admitted 
the respondent's . appeal against his conviction and passed an interim 
H order suspending execution of the sentence. After four years of his dismiss-
668 
0 
U.0.1. v. RM1.ESH KUMAR 
669 
al, respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative · A 
Tribunal seeking his reinstatement in service. The Tribunal allowed the 
application. Hence this appeal by the Union of India. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary 
Authority is empowered to take action against a government servant on 
the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal 
charge. The rules, however, do not provide that on suspension of execution 
of sentence by the appellate court, the order of dismissal based on convic-
B 
tion stands obliterated and the dismissed government servant has to be C 
treated under suspension till disposal of appeal by the appellate court. The 
rules also do not provide the Disciplinary Authority to await disposal of 
the appeal by the appellate court for taking action against him on the 
ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a competent court 
of law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing D 
respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his 
conviction by a competent court of law has not lost its sting merely because 
a criminal appeal was filed by the respondent against his conviction and 
the appellate court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged 
the respondent on bail. [672-F-H] 
2. Under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has power to 
suspend the execution of sentence and to release the accused on bail. When 
the appellate court suspends execution of the sentence and grants bail to 
the accused, the effect of the order is that the sentence based on conviction 
E 
is for the time being postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency F 
of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under 
Section 389 Cr.P.C. an accused avoids undergoing sentence pending 
criminal appeal. However, the conviction continues and is not obliterated 
and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a govern-
ment servant on a misconduct which lead to his conviction by the court of G 
law does not lose its efficacy merely because the appellate court has 
suspended the execution of sentence. Such being the position of law, the 
Administrative Tribunal fell in error in holding that by suspension of 
execution of sentence by the appellate court, the order of dismissal passed 
against the respondent was liable to be quashed and the respondent is to 
· be treated under susp

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