Termination on criminal conviction upheld where service rules allowed action despite appeal and suspension of sentence.

A service regulation may permit termination of an employee on the basis of conviction by a competent criminal court without a prior enquiry or disciplinary proceedings. Where the regulation treats conviction itself as sufficient grounds for action, the pendency of a criminal appeal or suspension of sentence does not, by itself, undo the employer's authority to terminate. On that basis, the termination was treated as authorised under the applicable service rules and not as an unreasoned or unauthorised exercise of power.

---

---

Issues: Whether the employer was justified in terminating the employee's services under Rule 10(a) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations on the basis of conviction, notwithstanding pendency of the criminal appeal and suspension of sentence.

Analysis: The service regulation made conviction by a competent criminal court a ground for termination without enquiry or disciplinary proceedings. The existence of a conviction itself constituted sufficient basis for action under the rule, and the pendency of an appeal or suspension of sentence did not nullify the employer's authority to act. The termination was held to be within the framework of the applicable regulation and not an unreasoned or unauthorized order.

Conclusion: The termination was valid and the employee's challenge failed.

---