Skip to main content

Disciplinary Action Against Govt. Employee For Conviction In Criminal Case Not Barred Due To Suspension Of Sentence

In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Mukesh Poonamchand Shah, was found guilty by a CBI Court in 2014 for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. The employee was served with a show cause notice by the LIC proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service in view of his conviction by the Special Judge, CBI. This was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition on the ground that disciplinary action cannot proceed during the pendency of criminal appeal. The single bench did not accept this and dismissed the writ petition. In further appeal by him, the division bench allowed the plea, restraining LIC from acting against him till his criminal appeal is disposed of. Challenging this, the LIC approached the SC.

At the outset, the SC noted that only the sentence has been suspended in the criminal appeal, and not the conviction. The Court also noted that Regulation 39(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 enabled the authority to take action against the employee where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge.

The bench also referred to the decision in Dy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn) v S Nagoor Meera (1995) 3 SCC 377 which held that proceedings against 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. In that decision, the Court specifically disapproved of the view that until the appeal against the conviction was disposed of, action under clause(a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) was not permissible.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more