JUDGMENT : N.H. Bhatt, J. These two petitions by two different employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department are taken up together because they involve a common question of law namely, whether a public employee who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to on that count can be proceeded against departmentally and be visited with any serious penalty of dismissal, removal, etc. even if the said conviction and sentence are open to challenge and in fact are subjudice before the appellate forum which might have been, pleased to admit the challenge. 2. Frankly, it must be stated that there is divergance of opinion amongst the High Courts on this question. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of A.B. Culvert and Another v. The General Manager, B.E. Rly. and Another AIR 1970 Calcutta page 501 and the judgment of the learned Single judge of the Madras High Court in the case of T.R. Subbaraman and others v. State by Inspector of Police and Another, 1970 Labour and Industrial Cases, page 1246 held that conviction being the ground of the departmental proceedings and there being no suspension of the conviction, though there will be suspension of the order of imprisonment and fine or both, the disciplinary rule must be allowed its full sway, obviously under the implied, but inevitable understanding that if the appellate forum allows the appeal, the very bottom of the departmental proceedings result-suiting into any penalty will stand automatically knocked out, and the employer will be relegated to the position he was in on the day prior to the impugned order of penalty had come to be passed. On the other hand there is a view of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of R.S. Das v. Divisional Superintendent, AIR 1960 Allahabad page-538 and also the view of the Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in the case of Dilbagh Rai Jerry v. The Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway and Others, AIR 1959 Punjab page-401, that term the "conviction" as occurring in the departmental rules and even under the Article 311 of the Constitution of India, in the final analysis as final conviction and as long as the said conviction is in the balance, recourse cannot be had to those departmental rules dispensing with the normal rules of inquiry and the employees cannot be visited with any penalty. 3. I would frankly say that the position is quite balanced and there can be good deal of support for either of the views both logically speaking or legally speaking. However, to me it appears that if the disciplinary authority is ready to take risk of treating their order of imposing penalty as automatically being knocked out, there should be no bar to their taking into action under the relevant rules. The reason that impels me to prefer this view is that the other thing being equal interest of public service must have their play in the service law. The three reasons that impel me to say so are as follows: Firstly, if a court of competent jurisdiction and that too a court of a competent criminal jurisdiction where the standard of proof is beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt holds an employee guilty of the charge, there would be material before the Department to support penalty, so that in case the conviction ultimately comes to be upheld the public exchequer has not to suffer in the matter of its funds. Secondly, as far as an individual is concerned, he can be compensated monetarily if that conviction is set a-side, the order of dismissal resting only on that conviction as the substratum for it. The third reason is also there that should have its sway in this set of circumstances. With the order of dismissal, a public employee can very well try his hand at other sources of employment which will not be available to him, if he so continues under suspension. The third reason is also there that should have its sway in this set of circumstances. With the order of dismissal, a public employee can very well try his hand at other sources of employment which will not be available to him, if he so continues under suspension. Then he has to remain content with 50% of the allowance which is normally available to the persons under suspension. 4. In above view of the matter I hold that it is open to a public authority to act on the conviction recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction with the expressed statement made in the order of penalty that in case the conviction comes to be set aside, the order of disciplinary action will automatically come to an end and the disciplinary authority will then treat the said employee automatically reinstated in service with all attendant benefits. Both the petitions are therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. 5. The learned Advocate, Mr. Amin in this connection had invited my attention to some guidelines issued by the Postal Department in their Manual. This Court is a court of law and interprets the legal questions on the basis of the statutory rules. If the departmental instructions are otherwise, I would say that in the matter of discretion the authority should be guided by those instructions issued from the apex body of theirs. 6. The operation of this judgment is stayed for a period of two weeks from today in order to enable these petitioners to have further recourse in accordance with law, if any. Petitions rejected.