Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 530 (PAT)

Laxmi @ Lakshmi Sahani v. Union of India

2006-06-26

body2006
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2005, passed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, East Central Railway, Annexure-3, who resorting to the powers contained in Rule 17 of the Railway Servants (DAR) Rules 1968, has dismissed them as they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the said order on the ground that the appeal against the conviction referred to in the impugned order has already been filed vide Cr. Appeal No. 329 of 2005 in which under order dated 22.6.2005 this Court had admitted the petitioners to the privilege of bail and according to the learned counsel once the petitioners have been admitted to the privilege of bail and the appeal is kept pending for final hearing, conviction had not attained finality and ought not to have been relied upon to dismiss them from service. In this connection he relies on the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ram Nandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 399. i. . . . 4. On the other hand, Sri Bhupendra Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the Railway Administration, has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition has submitted with reference to the order dated 22.6.2005, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 329 of 2005, Annexure-2 that the petitioners have been admitted to the privilege of bail during the pendency of the appeal, but their conviction for the offences under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code has not been suspended and in the facts and circumstances of the case for all practical purposes can always be taken into account for dismissing them from service. In this connection he also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang & Others, reported in 1995(2) SCC 513 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with reference to the provisions contained in Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has held that there is distinction between the suspension of the sentence and order of conviction. While granting bail to the petitioners, their sentence is suspended and not the order of conviction. 5. While granting bail to the petitioners, their sentence is suspended and not the order of conviction. 5. From perusal of the order dated 22.6.2005, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 329 of 2005, Annexure-2 it appears that the Petitioners have only been admitted to the privilege of bail during the pendency of the appeal, but the order convicting them has not been suspended. 6. In the circumstances, at this stage I do not find any merit in the prayer made in these writ petitions against the impugned order. Petitioners should be well advised to first approach the Appellate Court for suspending the order of their conviction and if at all they succeed in securing suspension of the order convicting them, then they should approach the authorities to recall the impugned order in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that at this stage I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of this case. 8. These applications are accordingly, disposed of.