1. In this petition filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the appellant/A1 seeks stay of conviction passed by the II Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam in his judgment dated 30-04-2013 in C.C.No.6 of 2007 convicting him and A2 for the offences under Sections 120B, 384 IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”).

2. A1 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and appellant/A2 is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Rajahmundry.

Prosecution case is thus:

a) The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad directed A1 and A2 to conduct inspections at various Central Government organisations/undertakings at Visakhapatnam particularly the work sites of contractors who were executing the contract works in those Central Government organisations/undertakings from 24-08-2006 to 26-08-2006. A1 and A2 pursuant to the aforesaid direction occupied room No.3 in HPCL guest house at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that on 24-08-2006 and 25-08-2006 A1 and A2 visited work sites of the contractors in various Central Government undertakings/organisations like HPCL, Visakhapatnam, Port Trust etc. and demanded the contractors illegal gratification and accepted bribes totalling about Rs.60,000/-. They did not inspect the work sites seriously but made only eye-wash inspections and prepared deficient reports.

b) On reliable information about collection of bribe by A1 and A2 from various contractors, a team of CBI officials conducted sudden and surprise search in room No.3 of HPCL guest house on 25-08-2006 in the presence of two independent mediators i.e. PW21—M.Satyanarayana and LW13—G.Siva Rama Krishna and seized an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was the bribe amount collected from various contractors from the possession of A1 and A2. A case was registered in R.C.15(A)/2006 against A1 and A2, investigated and tried and they were ultimately convicted and sentenced for the offences as stated supra.

Hence, the appeal by A1.

3. While so, the petitioner in the instant petition seeks stay of conviction on the following submissions.

a) Consequent to conviction passed by the trial court, the petitioner was kept under suspension by the department in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by its order dated 04.06.2013 and suspension order is being extended from time to time.

b) While so, basing on the recommendation letter dated 10.01.2014 of UPSC, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi proposes to either dismiss or remove the petitioner from service under Rule 19(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the sole ground that petitioner was convicted in the criminal case and in the appeal there is no stay of conviction from the Honourable High Court. Hence, the threat of dismissal is staring against the appellant/A1 which is revealed from the correspondence made by the competent authority under the advice of UPSC.

c) The petitioner submits he has good case to contest in the appeal. He is at the verge of superannuation within a period of three years. In the event he is dismissed from service, his entire family which comprises himself, his wife and two children, will be subjected to much sufferance and hardship. If this Court orders stay of conviction, he will be allowed to continue in service though under suspension till finalisation of the pending criminal appeal or superannuation whichever is earlier. Otherwise appellant would suffer irreparable and irreversible loss and ultimately, even if he succeeds in the appeal there will be no use. Hence, the petition.

4. Heard arguments of Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI.

5. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the recommendation dated 10.01.2014 made by UPSC to th