IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1033 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.795 OF 2007 Maya Durgaprasad Adane ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Purushottam G.Chavan for Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 3, 2008. APRIL 3, 2008. APRIL 3, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this Application, the Applicant prays for stay/suspension of the execution, operation, implementation and the effect of order of conviction dated 19th July 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.196 of 2005 in relation to offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. : 2 : 2. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has challenged the correctness of the said decision before this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.795 of 2007. The said Appeal has already been admitted by this Court. This Court was also pleased to grant bail to the Applicant for the reasons recorded in the said order. However, the disciplinary Authority has issued show-cause notice to the Applicant on 27th November 2007 calling upon the Applicant to show-cause why the Applicant should not be dismissed from service in view of the order of conviction operating in favour of the Applicant. 3. Indeed, the Applicant has filed reply to the said show-cause notice on 18th December 2007. However, the Applicant apprehends that the Authority may proceed to pass order of dismissal relying on the Government Circulars amongst others dated 12th June 1986. In that, the Authority is empowered to take action against the public servant in view of the order of conviction passed against him by a Court of competent jurisdiction, if the Authority is of the view that retention of that : 3 : public servant would prima facie be undesirable. 4. Counsel for the Applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court amongst others in the case of Rama Narang v.Ramesh Narang & Ors. Rama Narang v.Ramesh Narang & Ors. Rama Narang v.Ramesh Narang & Ors. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 513 reported in (1995) 2 SCC 513 reported in (1995) 2 SCC 513 and that of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Laxman Malhari Sable vs. State of Maharashtra Laxman Malhari Sable vs. State of Maharashtra Laxman Malhari Sable vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 780 reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 780 reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 780. The legal position has been expounded in the aforesaid two decisions. It is held that if the attention of the Court is invited to the specific consequence to be suffered by the Appellant on account of order of conviction, then the Court has power to suspend the order of conviction and sentence so as to obviate any damage that would be caused to the Applicant before it and such damage cannot be undone if ultimately the Applicant’s Appeal was to be allowed. 5. In my opinion, the principle expounded in the aforesaid decisions would apply proprio vigore to the fact situation of the present case. Inasmuch as, the Applicant is likely to be : 4 : dismissed from service in terms of the proposed action indicated in the show-cause notice. That damage cannot be undone if ultimately the Applicant was to succeed in the Appeal. Indeed, it is possible to contend that the Applicant can be compensated by the Government by paying all the backwages and other consequential benefits on account of order of reinstatement, but that cannot compensate the Applicant for the colossal damage and loss of reputation to be suffered by the Applicant on account of dismissal from service, in the event the Applicant’s Appeal was to succeed before this Court. The Applicant has made out prima facie case for which reason, this Court has admitted the Appeal. One of the argument of the Applicant is that the criminal action against the Applicant is not bonafide, inasmuch as the distance between the institution of the criminal case and the person who committed suicide was almost three years in point of time. That by itself, however, cannot be the basis to keep the order of conviction and sentence in abeyance, unless specific consequence such as dismissal from service was to be suffered by the Applicant. : 5 : 6. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, it is appropriate to grant relief as prayed for in this application in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 8. Insofar as prayer clause (b1) is concerned, in view of this order, the Authorities are expected to defer the proposed action of dismissal on the basis of self-same order of conviction which has been suspended in terms of this order. If however, the Authorities intend to proceed against the Applicant, it will be open to the Applicant to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible by law, which shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.