JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. — Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent was working as Superintendent in the office of the Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education, Madurai in 1986. Complaints of corruption were received against him. An enquiry was held into those complaints by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department which opined that the charge was true. Accordingly, the respondent was prosecuted before the Chief Judical Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was that the respondent received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Vijay Kumar promising him to secure a job for him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in addition to fine of Rs. 1,000/- . The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence aforesaid and on 14-2-1991, the court suspended the sentence imposed on the respondent and released him on bail.

3. On October 27, 1993 the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education issued a notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in view of his conviction by the criminal court. The show cause notice expressly recites that in as much as the High Court has only suspended the sentence, his conviction is still in force . The notice also recites the nature of the offence for which the respondent was convicted.

4. Soon after receiving the show cause notice, the respondent filed Original Application No. 6851 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. His submission, which has been upheld by the Tribunal is that inasmuch as the sentence imposed upon him by the criminal court has been suspended by the appellate court (High Court), no proceedings can be taken for terminating his services under and with reference to clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has quashed the aforesaid show cause notice on the following reasoning :

"Therefore, it is clear that once the sentence has been suspended admitting the appeal, the criminal proceedings of the Lower Court which ended in conviction and sentence of the applicant is being continued in the appellate court and it can end only when the proceedings in the appellate court come to an end. Till then the applicant cannot be proceeded under the provisions of the T. N. C. S. (C. C. A) Rules as has been done in this case. Yet another flaw is that there has been inordinate delay of two years and eight months after the conviction and sentence was passed by the Lower Court in issuing the impugned show cause notice. This inordinate delay is unexplained. Therefore, the show cause notice to the applicant is not sustainable in law till the appellate court disposes of the Criminal Appeal."

5. The correctness of the said order is questioned by the Deputy Director of the Collegiate Education this appeal.

6. Article 311 (2) declares that no person, who is a member of the civil service of the Union or All India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The second proviso, however, carves out three exceptions to the said rule. We are concerned with the first exception mentioned under clause (a) . Insofar as it is relevant, the second proviso reads as follows :

"Provided further that this clause shall not apply ( (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge."

7. This clause, it is relevant to notice, speaks of "conduct which has led his conviction on a criminal charge." It does not speak of sentence or punishment awarded. Merely because the sentence is suspend