Suspension of sentence does not affect conviction or invalidate dismissal based on it.

Raj Kumar, a Senior Branch Manager with Punjab National Bank, was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

The Bank dismissed him under Regulation 11 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. His departmental appeal was rejected while his criminal appeal remained pending.

Although the petitioner said he could not respond to the show-cause notice because he was in custody, the dismissal order recorded that a lawyer had submitted a reply on his behalf.

After the departmental appeal was rejected, the High Court suspended his sentence; the petitioner then sought reinstatement, but the Bank declined to interfere because his conviction remained in force.

Whether the Bank could dismiss the petitioner under Regulation 11 on the basis of his criminal conviction while his criminal appeal was pending

Whether suspension of the petitioner’s sentence, without a stay of conviction or acquittal, entitled him to reinstatement

Whether the dismissal was procedurally defective because the petitioner allegedly had no opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice

Regulation 11 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 permits the Disciplinary Authority to impose a penalty where an officer has been convicted on a criminal charge, subject to an opportunity to make a representation on the proposed penalty.

Under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 389(1) of the CrPC, an appellate court may suspend execution of a sentence; suspension of sentence does not suspend or nullify the finding of guilt.

A stay of conviction is distinct relief and does not follow automatically from suspension of sentence, as explained in Lalita Rani Mondal Saha v. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 003342 of 2026, decided 22 July 2026), relying on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513.

The petitioner’s conviction brought the case within Regulation 11, which allowed the Bank to impose a penalty on that basis.

The Court found that a reply to the show-cause notice had been submitted by a lawyer on the petitioner’s behalf and considered by the Competent Authority, so his claimed lack of opportunity did not establish a procedural defect.

The sentence was suspended only after the Appellate Authority had decided the departmental appeal; in any event, sentence suspension left the conviction operative.

As the conviction had neither been stayed nor set aside, it did not entitle the petitioner to reinstatement.

The writ petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications.