IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12688 of 2009 MD.KASHIM AHMAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 07.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner while in service was made a named accused in a criminal case along with others under Sections 302 and other provisions of the Penal code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 2002/Trial No. 100 of 2006. His involvement in the criminal offence led to his suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings. The memo of charges stated that involvement in the criminal case was an act of indiscipline, moral turpitude and conduct unbecoming of a Police Officer showing dereliction in duty. The departmental proceeding is still pending and the petitioner continues under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 980 of 2006 before this Court and in which he has been enlarged on bail. Therefore, there is no justification to continue with the suspension of the petitioner. The order of suspension may thus be set aside as the hearing of the Criminal Appeal is likely to take time. Learned Counsel for the State urged that the issue in the departmental proceeding is with regard to the aspects of indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a Police Officer in view of nature of the offence for which he has been convicted. It is not in controversy that the petitioner has filed his reply to the memo of charges and the departmental proceedings are going on. The law stands settled that mere preferring of appeal against an order of conviction does not tantamount to absolving of the guilt but bail only results in keeping the sentence in abeyance. Unless and until conviction is stayed the grounds mentioned in the memo of charges on which he has been subjected to departmental proceeding remains valid. Thereafter suspension is a matter to be considered by the disciplinary authority in the entirety of the matter and it is not for the Court to interfere with the same at this stage merely on the ground of petitioner having been enlarged on bail. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court on issues with regard to limitation on the nature of the orders that could be passed in the disciplinary proceeding by the disciplinary authority, this Court is not persuaded to go into the same at this stage, as presently those matters rest in the realm of the disciplinary authority to be decided in accordance with law only whereafter if need arises the question of judicial review may or may not arise. This writ application is therefore disposed with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order, provided the petitioner himself cooperates. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)