JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- This special appeal is directed against the judgement of Oak, J. (as he then was) dated 9-10-1961, allowing writ petition No. 3164 of 1958 filed by the respondent, Sri Sharif Ahmad Nagrami (hereinafter referred to as Nagrami).

2. Nagrami was in the service of the New India Insurance Company Limited, Bombay, as an Inspector. After the enforcement of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the business of the aforesaid company was taken over by the Lift Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The petitioner thereafter came in the employment of the Corporation. He was prosecuted before a Magistrate 1st Class for offences punishable under Section 406, I.P.C. The Magistrate convicted him under Section 406, I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer imprisonment for one year. On 26-2-1957 the Divisional Manager dismissed Nagrami from service. On 5-3-1957 Nagrami informed the Corporation of his acquittal and on 21-3-1957 he made an application for the withdrawal of the dismissal order. On 2-8-1957 the Branch Manager informed Nagrami that the order of dismissal could not be withdrawn. On 14-10-1957 Nagrami filed an appeal before the Executive Committee, Life Insurance Corporation Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Executive Committee). On 28-5-1958 the Executive Committee dismissed the appeal and by means of a letter dated 23-6-1958 the Divisional Manager informed Nagrami that his appeal had been dismissed on 28-5-1958. The petitioner then filed writ petition no. 3164 of 1958 in this Court on 28-10-1958.

3. Oak, J. allowed the writ petition on the ground that Nagrami could not be dismissed under Regulation 40 of the (Staff) Regulations of the Corporation because on the date when the order of his dismissal was passed, he was not under an order of conviction. The learned Single Judge held that, that being the position, there was violation of statutory regulation and for that reason the order of dismissal was liable to be quashed. Oak, J. repelled the plea made on behalf of the Corporation that inasmuch as the Executive Committee which dismissed the appeal of Nagrami was located outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no writ could be issued to it and even though the order of dismissal was passed by the Divisional Manager who was functioning within the Jurisdiction of this Court. The court could not grant any relief to Nagrami.

4. In this appeal which has been filed by the Corporation Mr. S.D. Agarwal has made two submissions before us; firstly, that the learned single Judge has misread the provisions of Regulation 40 and, secondly, that in view of the circumstance that this Court had no jurisdiction to quash the order of the Executive Committee, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. We proceed to consider the submission seriatim. Regulation 40 reads :-

"40(1) An employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be liable to be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest and shall be allowed the payments admissible to an employee under suspension under clause (4) of Regulation 41 until the termination of the proceedings against him, when an adjustment of his pay and allowances shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether his absence is to be accounted for as a period of duty or leave, the full pay and allowance being given only in the event of the employee being acquitted of all blame and treated as on duty during the period of his absence. 'An employee who is committed to prison for debt or is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to dismissal.'

(2) All such cases shall be reported to the Executive Committee as soon as practicable.

Explanation :- In this regulation the expression "termination of proceedings" shall mean the decision of the lowest court which first finally d