JUDGMENT : 1. We had passed an order dated 6.5.94 wherein after tracing in brief the history of the litigation we had pointed out that as many as 49 warrants of arrest of Gurcharan Singh had remained unserved even though he was convicted for corruption and was at all material times serving with P.S.E.B. and drawing regular salary. We had also directed the police department as well as P.S.E.B. to explain how he was allowed to continue in service after conviction for corruption. We had also expressed the hope that he will not be allowed to withdraw from his provident fund etc. till the Court is informed of the circumstances in which he was allowed to serve. 2. Subsequently by our order dated 4.9.95 we saw no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence awarded to him and dismissed his Special Leave Petition directed against the said order. We then referred to, the order of 6.5.94 and considered the statement filed by the Chairman of P.S.E.B. in answer to the Show Cause Notice which we found to be far from satisfactory. We also stated that we would have expected the said officer to Me an affidavit offering the explanation. We gave a further opportunity to the Chief Secretary as well as the Chairman of the P.S.E.B. to file a better affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the warrants of the Court were not executed from time to time. We had also desired that the officials should take a serious view of the matter or we may be constrained to deal with the erring officers who were responsible for refusing to execute the process of the Court. The Chief Secretary filed an affidavit admitting the fact that there had been lapses occasioning non-execution of the warrants and that departmental action against the negligent police officials was initiated, and certain police officials named therein had been found guilty and duly punished. He also regretted the non-execution of the warrants by the said police officials. The Chairman of P.S.E.B. has filed an affidavit dated 20th September, 1995. He has appended thereto the earlier explanation of his predecessor in office dated 30.5.94 which we had found not to be wholly satisfactory. He also regretted the non-execution of the warrants by the said police officials. The Chairman of P.S.E.B. has filed an affidavit dated 20th September, 1995. He has appended thereto the earlier explanation of his predecessor in office dated 30.5.94 which we had found not to be wholly satisfactory. In the subsequent-affidavit filed by the present Chairman-who took over with effect from 1st February 1995, he has pointed out that a Committee was constituted to identify the officers responsible for non-deligently pursuing the matter with the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, after September, 1988. Having identified these officers and scrutinising their explanations it was observed that the record keeper did not place the file at regular intervals after August, 1988. As regards the non-service of the warrants he states that no warrant was sought to be executed against Gurcharan Singh with the assistance of the P.S.E.B. He has also apologised that a complete, and full affidavit was not filed in the first instance by his predecessor in office. From the above it becomes obvious that Gurcharan Singh who was aware of his conviction had not kept P.S.E.B. informed about the developments. It is obvious that after the High Court disposed of the appeal maintaining the conviction and sentence and there being no stay granted by this Court the said Gurcharan Singh could not have continued in service but he did so by successfully avoiding execution of the warrants. It was clearly a case of suppression. He cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of such conduct. We, therefore, direct the P.S.E.B. to calculate the salary and allowance as paid to him after the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court and deduct the same from his provident fund or other monetary benefits to which he would be entitled as also the monetary benefits that he may have reaped on account of undeserved extended service. This should be done within three months from today and intimation given to this Court about the action taken. The Special Leave Petition will stand disposed of accordingly.