Judgment : 1. PETITIONER who was employed as a junior engineer in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed the instant petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 21/26.12.1995 and 7.3.1996 passed by the Deputy General Manager (UR) the Disciplinary Authority of the Corporation whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and his request for reinstatement in the service was rejected. 2. THE brief facts of the case as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner, who was the holder of diploma in civil engineering, was appointed as junior engineer in the Corporation on 26.6.1994. While in service he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 385 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in session Trial No. 41 of 1991 by his judgment and order dated 7.12.1995. On the basis of the conviction dated 7.12.1995 respondent no. 3, after following the procedure prescribed under Rules, in exercise of power under Rule 27 of the Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 21/25.1.1995. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 7.12.1995 petitioner preferred criminal appeal before High Court which was registered as criminal appeal No. 2007 of 1995. Appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted and he was also directed to be released on bail on 10.1.1996. The order passed by this Court is quoted below : "Shri A.D. Giri appears for the appellant, Virendra Singh. The operation of the impugned order dated 7.12.1995 is quashed. The appellant, Virendra singh was on bail during the trial. Admit him to bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. Tehri Garhwal in S. T. No. 41 of 1991 under Section 395 of 1991. The realisation of the fine is stayed. " 3. ON the strength of the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by this Court the petitioner made an application before respondent no. 3 for his reinstatement in service and permission to join the post. Request made by the petitioner was however, not acceded to and was rejected by the Senior Personnel Officer vide order dated 7.3.1996. Petitioner, as stated above, has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.12.1995 and 7.3.1996. 4. IN have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. Request made by the petitioner was however, not acceded to and was rejected by the Senior Personnel Officer vide order dated 7.3.1996. Petitioner, as stated above, has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.12.1995 and 7.3.1996. 4. IN have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the operation of the order dated 20.12.1995 was stayed by the High Court, beside releasing the applicant on bail, therefore, pending disposal of the appeal he was entitled to be reinstated, view taken to the contrary, by the authorities below is illegal. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission on the decision in the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera (JT 1995 3 SC 32), in which Supreme Court after noticing its recent decision in Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang (JT 1995 1 SC 515), was pleased to rule as under : "we need not concern ourselves any more with the power of the appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is the conduct which has led to the conviction on a criminal charge, and there can be no question of suspending the conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said Government accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. " 5. IN the present case on the date the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner the interim order, referred to above, was not in operation, therefore, there was no legal bar on passing the order of dismissal. The controversy involved in the present petition is as to whether after the interim order was granted by this Court, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner ceased to be operative. The controversy involved in the present petition is as to whether after the interim order was granted by this Court, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner ceased to be operative. The supreme Court as it is apparent from the aforesaid decision took the view that taking proceedings for and passing the order of dismissal, removal and reduction of rank of Government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not a bar merely because the sentence or operation of order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said Government servant accused has been released on bail pending appeal. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme court it cannot be said that the order of dismissal which was rightly passed became in-operative because an interim order was granted by the High Court in criminal appeal filed against the order of conviction. Supreme Court has also observed that merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail the conviction does not cease to be operative. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme court has observed as under : "the more appropriate course in all such cases is to take action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) once a Government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the case may be. If, however, the Government servant-accused is acquitted on appeal or other proceedings, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to had he continued in service. The other course suggested, viz. to wait till the appeal, revision and other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court. " 6. IN view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that it is a fit case in which the petitioner may apply for expediting the hearing of the criminal appeal by making an application before hon'ble the Chief Justice. IN view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that it is a fit case in which the petitioner may apply for expediting the hearing of the criminal appeal by making an application before hon'ble the Chief Justice. In case his appeal is allowed and petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him he will be entitled to his salary and all other benefits to which he would have been entitled to as if he continued in regular service without break. Subject to the observations made above the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition Dismissed.