Ravikant S. Patil vs Sarvabhouma S. Bagali on 14 November, 2006
However, it appears that the position of law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravikant S. Patil v.
Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported at 2007(1) SCC 673 read with
another decision of the Apex Court in case of Navjot Singh
Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another reported at 2007(2) SCC
574 is not considered. It may also be recorded that in the said
decision, the view expressed by the Apex Court is that after
conviction, if the appeal is preferred and conviction is
suspended, the effect of conviction can be said as not in
operation. Therefore, it would be incorrect to state that if
the conviction is by the criminal Court and appeal is pending
and the conviction is stayed, the disciplinary authority can
ignore the factum of pendency of the appeal and the suspension
of conviction by the appellate Court in the said appeal against
conviction. At the same time it will be for the respondent
authority to consider the matter regarding the gravity of the
criminal offence, in which there was conviction, and as to
whether such conviction against which the appeal is pending has
any nexus with the discharged of the duty by the employee
concerned or not. If the nexus is direct to the discharge of
the duty, keeping in view the larger interest of the
administration, the disciplinary authority may take decision to
keep such person away from actual discharge of the duty, but in
such circumstances, the position as prevailing prior to
conviction may be maintained, like that of suspension or
otherwise. However, in cases where the gravity of the offence
in which the conviction has taken place and for which the
appeal is pending has no direct nexus to the actual discharge
of duty by the employee concerned, the authority may take
different view. Further, it may also be depends upon the
quantum of the subsistence allowance, even if the position is
restored prior to the conviction. To say in other word if the
subsistence allowance is like payment equivalent to the full
salary, and the gravity of the offence in which the conviction
has taken place has no direct nexus to the discharge of the
actual duty, the authority may take decision to permit employee
to discharge the duty actually and to pay full salary inspite
of paying salary by way of subsistence allowance without taking
any work. Such circumstances and other relevant circumstances,
which may be germane to the exercise of the power, keeping in
view largest interest of the administration are to be examined
and the appropriate decision is to be taken by the authority
concerned.