JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh, J. - This petition by State of U.P. and some other Government Officers is directed against the judgment of U.P. Public Services Tribunal through which it quashed the dismissal order of opposite party No. 1 The Tribunal further ordered that opposite party No. 1 will be deemed to have continued in service throughout. As regards suspension order it said that the Department shall consider within three months of the order according to rules the question of salary for the period of suspension and in the event of failure of the Department to do so the petitioner would be given salary for the entire period. 2. It appears from the record that the opposite party No. 1 was first suspended and then dismissed. In the dismissal order it is written that he was being dismissed, because he had been punished for a criminal act and decision have been given even by High Court in revision. It appears from the judgment of the Public Services Tribunal, that lastly the conviction of the opposite party No. 1 was upheld u/s 332 IPC and he was only fined Rs. 200 for giving punishment of dismissal no enquiry was made. 3. The opposite party No. 1 was dismissed without inquiry relying on Article 311 wherein it has been said that this Article regarding inquiry etc. was not applicable where a person was dismissed on the ground of conduct which led to the conviction of the employee on a criminal charge. The order of dismissal shows that the Department never considered the conduct of the opposite party No. 1 that had led to his conviction on criminal charge. It merely dismissed the employee saying that the opposite party No. 1 had been convicted. This is not permissible. Under Article 311 inquiry can be dispensed with only when a person is dismissed on the ground of conduct which led to conviction. In other words, when the punishing authority thinks that the conduct, which resulted in conviction is such that the person should be dismissed. Here that conduct was not considered and the employee was dismissed without considering that conduct only on the simple ground that the, person had been convicted. This is not permissible. So the order of dismissal is certainly erroneous. As regards suspension, the matter was left to be decided by the Department. Hence, this writ petition had no merits. 4. Here that conduct was not considered and the employee was dismissed without considering that conduct only on the simple ground that the, person had been convicted. This is not permissible. So the order of dismissal is certainly erroneous. As regards suspension, the matter was left to be decided by the Department. Hence, this writ petition had no merits. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. The period of three months given in Judgment as the Tribunal will run from the date of the judgment of this Court.