Mere Suspension Of Sentence Or Grant Of Bail To The Accused Cannot Imply That The Conviction Ceases To Operate : Delhi HC [Read Order]
Delhi High Court has reiterated that suspension of sentence, pending an appeal, doesn't imply a suspension of order of conviction.
It is held by Justice Rekha Palli 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 the present case, the petitioner was convicted of offences under sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 of IPC, however upon filing of an appeal, the appellate court suspended his sentence and granted him bail pending his appeal.
Meanwhile, Delhi Jal Board relieved the appellant of his services. 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 factors, rightly reached its conclusion. Hence, the present writ was filed.
Petitioner's counsel argued that even though the petitioner's 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.
Appearing for the Respondent, Mr Rameezuddin Raja argued that in view of the settled position that mere suspension of sentence does not imply that the order of conviction has been stayed or that the employer should ignore the fact and effect of such conviction.
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 AIR 1997 SC 3531 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..'
While rejecting the writ petition, the court opined that the Delhi Jal Board was justified in coming to the conclusion that further retention of the petitioner in service was undesirable. A cost of Rs. 10000 has also been imposed upon the petitioner.
Click here to download the Order