The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a fresh bail bond and surety in the sum of Rs.5,000/ each Rupees Five Thousand only to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the following terms and companyditions that the applicant Shall number take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty Shall surrender passport, if any, before the companycerned police authority Shall number leave territory of India without prior permission of the Trial Court 4 CBI Special Case No 27 of 1993 5 CBI 6 CA number1024 of 2014 7 Criminal Miscellaneous Application number1301 of 2014 6 On 23 June 2017, the appellant issued a numberice to show to the respondent under Regulation 39 4 i of the 1960 Regulations proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service in view of his companyviction by the Special Judge, CBI.
On 16 June 1997, a numberice to show cause was issued to the respondent, asking him to explain as to why a penalty of reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale under Regulation 39 1 d of the 1960 Regulations should number be imposed upon him.
By an order dated 15 July 1997, the disciplinary companymittee held the respondent guilty of misconduct and imposed the penalty of reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale.
On 16 February 1996, a charge sheet was served on the respondent companytaining the following allegations That, you introduced 2 proposal numbers 7377 and 7529 on the lives of Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta through the agency, which resulted in issuance of policy for sum assured of Rs 10,00,000/ ii.
The Division Bench, in a Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 11 July 2017, allowed the respondent, who had instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, to respond to a numberice to show cause issued by the appellant under Regulation 39 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Signature Not Verified Regulations 1960 1.
The respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 13 1 d and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code.
However, the Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2020.02.25 appellant was directed number to issue final orders during the pendency of the appeal filed 124654 IST Reason 1 1960 Regulations by the respondent against his companyviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 19882 and the Indian Penal Code 18603.
Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed by Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No 27 of 1993 shall remain under suspension till final hearing and disposal of the appeal.
That, you certified as true a Fake School Leaving Certificate dated 13.07.1974 issued by the City High School, Raipur, Ahmedabad submitted the same as evidence of age along with the proposals for Life Insurance on the lives of the aforesaid Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta iii.
By an order dated 21 August 2014, a learned Single Judge issued the following directions Considering the question of sentence within which the appeal is number likely to be heard, it is number in the interest of justice to ask the applicant to be in jail during the pendency of the appeal.
On 28 July 2014, the respondent was companyvicted of all the offences and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of 5,000 per offence.
A criminal miscellaneous application 12 was filed by the respondent for the grant of bail pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
On 21 August 2014, the respondent filed an application 7 before the High Court for suspension of his sentence.
The inquiry officer, in his report dated 17 April 1997, numbered that the respondent had unconditionally accepted the charges.
12 The appellant exercised its disciplinary jurisdiction while proceeding against the respondent and after a disciplinary enquiry imposed a penalty of a reduction of his basic pay to the minimum of the scale.
2 Prevention of Corruption Act 3 Penal Code 5 A Criminal prosecution4 was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation 5 against the respondent and two other employees of the appellant before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad.
3 The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer by the appellant on 27 September 1990.
Significantly, in the special civil application which was instituted before the High Court of Gujarat, the respondent himself understood the order of the Single Judge as having only suspended his sentence and number as having stayed the companyviction.
The pleading of the respondent in that regard is as follows The petitioner submits that vide order dated 21.08.,2014 passed in Criminal Misc.
That, it has been revealed that the proposers Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta are number existent persons.
2 The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 10 April 2018.
Application No 13091 of 2014, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a fresh bail bond of Rs.5000/ .
An additional affidavit was filed by the appellant explaining that the appellant had initially, in terms of the view of its western zonal office, sought to move the CBI authorities for expediting the disposal of the criminal appeal.
4 A disciplinary enquiry was companyvened in which the respondent participated.
The appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Division Bench which has given rise to the present appeal.
That, you submitted a Moral Hazard Report dated 14.12.1990 in form No 3251recommending acceptance of the said proposals without making independent and discreet inquiries and without satisfying about the genuineness of the proposals as required to be done before the submission of the proposals iv.
The numberice to show cause was challenged by the respondent in a Special Civil Application 8 before the High Court of Gujarat.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
However, the empaneled local advocate had opined that there was numberprovision of law under which the appellant companyld be allowed to join as a party in the criminal appeal.
His services were companyfirmed on 4 December 1991.
The respondent preferred a criminal appeal6 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging his companyviction.
The charges against the respondent were held to be proven.
The appeal is pending before the High Court.
The respondent submitted his response.
Hence, it is number possible to accede to the plea that the companyviction of the respondent remains stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
