9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are the application for stay/suspension of operation of conviction order, initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant, and the question of whether the appellant can be punished twice for the same charges. Summary: Issue 1: Application for Stay/Suspension of Conviction Order The appellant filed an Interlocutory Application seeking a stay of the conviction order passed against him by the Special Judge. The appellant was convicted under Sections 409/477A IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant's provisional bail was confirmed during the pendency of the appeal. Issue 2: Initiation of Departmental Proceedings The employer issued a suspension order cum charge-sheet against the appellant after the conviction order, calling for an explanation regarding disciplinary action. An Enquiry Officer and a presenting officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges framed against the appellant. Issue 3: Double Punishment The appellant had previously faced a departmental enquiry, resulting in dismissal, which was later overturned, and he was reinstated unconditionally. The appellant argued that it was improper for the management to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry for the same charges for which he was already punished and reinstated. Court's Decision: The Court examined the distinct charges in the different charge-sheets and found that they were not related. The Court held that the appellant should be treated as corrupt until exonerated by a superior court, as per legal precedents. The Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application, stating that the appellant's case did not warrant a stay of the conviction order during the appeal. This judgment highlights the legal principles surrounding the application for stay of a conviction order, the initiation of departmental proceedings post-conviction, and the prohibition against double punishment for the same charges.
|
