( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing (i) an order of the Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, hubli (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) by which the services of the petitioner were germinated; and (ii) the order of the Standing committee of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Committee affirming the above order of the commissioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was a Clerk in the Water Meter Section of the, Hubli dharwar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). He was kept under suspension on a charge, of misappropriating amounts to the extent of Rs. 880-66, which he had collected as water charges by passing official Receipts. A Departmental enquiry into that charge was commenced. In the mean-while, he was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharwar, for an offence punishable under S. 408 IPC. The learned Magistrate convicted him for that offence, but instead of passing a sentence on him released him on probation of good conduct under S. 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In his judgment, the Learned Magistrate observed thus :"accused is a first offender. He is an young man. The amount involved is about Rs. 600. It is submitted that the accused had lost the anaount. It is now submitted that the amount has been credited within a month. Having regard to age, character of the accused and to the circumstances of the case, I feel it expedient that the accused should be released on probation of good conduct under S. 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. " ( 3 ) AFTER the judgment in the criminal case, the Commissioner, by his order dt. 28-5-1970, terminated the services of the petitioner. On 9-7-1971 the petitioner appealed to the Standing Committee, which, by its order dt. 10-11-1971, dismissed that appeal. It observed that the appeal was barred by time, that the Court had held that he was guilty of the offence, that if that appeal should be enquired into, it would lead to encouragement to guilty persons and that there were no sufficient grounds to take up the appeal for consideration. 10-11-1971, dismissed that appeal. It observed that the appeal was barred by time, that the Court had held that he was guilty of the offence, that if that appeal should be enquired into, it would lead to encouragement to guilty persons and that there were no sufficient grounds to take up the appeal for consideration. ( 4 ) IN this petition, Sri S. R. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the express p'rovision of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, removing disqualification attached to a conviction, the commissioner was clearly in error in terminating the services of th,e petitioner solely on the ground of his having been convicted in the criminal case. ( 5 ) ON the other hand Sri K. A. Swamy, learned Counsel for the Corporation, contended that reading the impugned order of the Commissioner, as a whole, it was clear that the termination of the petitioner's services was not on the n^ere ground of his having been convicted, but also on the ground of his misconduct which led to his conviction. I shall now examine the relevant statutory provisions. The material part of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads : 12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of S. 3 or S. 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:" ( 6 ) HUBLI-DHARWAR Municpial Corporation is still governed by the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act ). Sec. 56 of that Act deals with imposition of penalties on Municipal Officers and Servants. The material parts of sub-sec. (3) of that Section read :"56 (3) No officer or servant shall be reduced to a lower post or removed or dismissed from service under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such reduction, removal or dismissal : provided that this sub-section shall not apply- (a) where a person is reduced, removed or dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction or a criminal charge; or (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "a number of decisions were cited at the Bar. It is unnecessary to refer to all of them as most of them have been considered in the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Om Prakash v. The Director, Postal Service, AIR. 1973 Pun. and Har. 1. . Both learned Counsel sought to derive support from that decision for their rival contentions. There, considering rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1965, which is in pan materia with sub-sec. (3) of S. 56 of the Corporation Act, the Full Bench observed that the liability to be departmentally punished for conduct which has led to the conviction of an employee, ,does not attach to the conviction, but attaches to the originajl conduct (misconduct) which constituted the offence of which the official has been convicted. Their Lordships held that the dismissal of the petitioner therein was bad since it was based solely upon the fact of his having been convicted without any finding about his conduct (which led to his conviction) justifying his dismissal. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations and conclusion of their Lordships. ( 7 ) THE impugned order of the Commissioner reads : "shri G. V. Kashimath, a temporary accounts clerk in the Meter section, Dharwar was placed under suspension under order referred to above at (i) with immediate effect pending departmental enquiry against him on the charge that he has misappropriated water charges to the extent of Rs. 880-66 even though the amount was collected by him by passing official receipt. ( 8 ) ON the basis of the complaint lodged by the Asst. Meter Supt. , dharwar Unit in the matter of short credit of the amount as stated above, investigation into the matter was made by the Police Authorities and he was charge sheeted for the offence under the provisions of Indiap, Penal Code. ( 9 ) THE Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class First Court, Dharwar convicted him (Shri G. V. Kashimath) under S. 251a (5) Crlpc for an offence punishable under Section 408, IPC. In view of the above, it is felt not advisable to retain Shri G. V. Kashimath in Municipal Services. His services are hereby terminated with effect from 28-5-1970. ( 9 ) THE Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class First Court, Dharwar convicted him (Shri G. V. Kashimath) under S. 251a (5) Crlpc for an offence punishable under Section 408, IPC. In view of the above, it is felt not advisable to retain Shri G. V. Kashimath in Municipal Services. His services are hereby terminated with effect from 28-5-1970. " the first three paras of the above order merely narrate the sequence of events which culminated in the conviction of the petitioner. The words "in view of the aboove" in the last para, of the order, do not seem to refer to the petitioner's conduct, but seem to refer to the fact of his conviction. Even reading the order as a whole, I am unable to accept the contention of Sri Swamy that it shows that the Commissioner had taken into account the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction for the offence of misappropriation. On the other hand, from that order it would appear that the Commissioner thought that the mere fact of the conviction of the petitioner for an offence, would make it not advisable to continue him in municipal service. In view of the express provision of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, when the petitioner was dealt with under S. 4 of that Act, the mere fact of his being convicted would not impose any disqualification on him though the authorities would not be precluded from taking action against him on the basis of his conduct which led to his conviction. ( 10 ) HENCE, the termination of the services pi the petitioner based upon the mere fact of his being convicted of an offence, is clearly unsustainable. The appellate order of the Standing Committee affirming the order of the commissioner, is also unsustainable. Sri Hegde contended that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement and to his salary and allowance from the date of his suspension till the date of such reinstatement. The necessary consequence of quashing the order terminating the petitioner's services, is that he stands reinstated in the service of the Corporation. At this stage it is sufficient to direct the authorities of the Corporation to consider, within three months from this day, his claim for arrears of his salary and allowances. In the result, I allow this petition and quash the order of the Commissioner dt. 5-6-1971 (Ext. At this stage it is sufficient to direct the authorities of the Corporation to consider, within three months from this day, his claim for arrears of his salary and allowances. In the result, I allow this petition and quash the order of the Commissioner dt. 5-6-1971 (Ext. 'b') terminating the services of the petitioner and the appellate order of the Standing Committee of the Corporation (Ext. 'b' ). However, I make it clear that it is open to the authorities to consider whether the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction, is such that his continuance in the Municipal service is undesirable or whether a minor punishment, if any, should be inflicted on him. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .