JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who was appointed as junior accountant in the office of the Director, Treasury and Accounts, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) pursuant to the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") having been declared successful in the said examination and after his due selection by the RPSC was appointed on the said post vide recommendation of the RPSC dated 8.6.1993, has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter alia that as advertisement was issued by RPSC for recruitment to the post of junior accountant. The petitioner applied to the RPSC for appearance in the said test to be conducted by it. He was successful in the test and was duly selected by RPSC and thereafter he was appointed on the post of junior accountant in the office of the Director, Treasury and Accounts, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2). 2. It has been contended by the petitioner that since he could not join his duty within the stipulated time he had applied for extension of time for joining which was duly accepted by respondent No. 2 and thereafter he resumed his duties on the said post in Sub-Treasury, Sahabad District Baran w.e.f. 26.8.1993. Subsequently to joining his duties in the office of respondent No. 2, vide order dated 21.3.1994 the petitioner was sent for training, the duration of which was 13 weeks vide (Annexure 3). Before joining his duties the petitioner had submitted his bio- data in the office of respondent No. 2 wherein he had mentioned that he had been convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bamanbas vide order dated 29.6.1992 for offence under Sections 147, 448 and 323, Indian Penal Code along with co-accused. The learned trial court instead of directing the petitioner and the co-accused to undergo imprisonment granted them the benefit of probation subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount with a further direction that the accused shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and they were also directed to pay of fine of Rs. 200/- each, in all amounting of Rs. 1000/- by way of compensation to the injured which was to be deposited with the trial court. 200/- each, in all amounting of Rs. 1000/- by way of compensation to the injured which was to be deposited with the trial court. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order of his conviction but the same was rejected by the appellate court on 31.3.1994. 3. It has further been contended by the petitioner that by an order dated 13.4.1994 passed by respondent No. 2 the services of the petitioner were terminated in view of the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court vide its order, dated 29.6.1992. As is apparent to this court from the perusal of the order dated 13.4.1994 (Annex.4) that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of junior accountant was conditional subject to production of a certificate and since respondent No. 2 had received information from the Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur that the petitioner had been convicted by a competent court in criminal case No. 11/1985 for offence under Sections 147, 448, 323 and 336, IPC, the service of the petitioner stood terminated. 4. It has further been contended by the petitioner that from the judgment of the trial court it would be apparent to this court that the impugned order (Annx. 4) by which the service of the petitioner was terminated is ex facie illegal for the reason that the petitioner was given benefit of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act which is not a disqualification to hold the post in Government service and hence the impugned order of termination of his service deserves to be re-called but the same was not done by the respondents for which he was compelled to file this writ petition in this court on 4.5.1994. It has been further contended by the petitioner that before filing this writ petition the petitioner had also served a notice for demand of justice on 15.4.1994 to the respondents vide Ex. 5 but the same was neither acknowledged nor any relief was given to the petitioner. It has been further contended by the petitioner that before filing this writ petition the petitioner had also served a notice for demand of justice on 15.4.1994 to the respondents vide Ex. 5 but the same was neither acknowledged nor any relief was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has thus assailed the impugned order of termination (Annex.4) on the grounds inter alia that he had not concealed anything from the notice of the appointing authority and all the facts including that of this conviction by the trial court in respect of offences referred to above as well as the benefit of probation which was extended to him, were within the knowledge of the competent authority and nothwithstanding this, his services were terminated by the respondents in an arbitrary and illegal manner. 5. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had assailed the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur in Criminal Appeal No. 10/92 whereby the judgment/order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bamanbas in Criminal Case No. 73/92 was confirmed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 148/94 under S. 482, Cr. P.C. Learned single Judge of this Court while upholding the order of conviction of the petitioners by the trial Court, held that the conviction of the petitioner in the aforesaid case shall not prejudice his service record and the revision petition was accordingly disposed of. 6. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contentions advanced at the bar, has placed reliance upon Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (for short "the Rules") which reads as under:- " 12. Character:- The character of candidate for direct recruitment to the service must be such as to qualify him for employment in the service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or the College in v--rich he was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from the responsible persons not connected with his college or University and not related to him. Note: (1) A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. Note: (1) A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the overthrow by violent means of Government as by law established, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification." Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended in this regard that since the petitioner was not convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude or violence in view of Rule 12 of the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service and during the pendency of this writ petition the respondent- State realising the obvious fallacy in the impugned order Ex. 4, directed reinstatement of the petitioner vide its order, dated 28.3.1995. However, it has further been contended that merely by setting aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from service and consequent reinstatement of the petitioner in service did not serve any purpose since his salary dues as admissible to the petitioner for the period in dispute i.e., 13.4.1994 to 2.4.1995, were not paid to him and no cogent explanation has been furnished by the respondents for denial of the said benefits, particularly when the impugned order of termination has itself been set aside, the natural consequences which flows from the said order is the payment of consequential benefits and the salary dues which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the rules, should be released in favour of the petitioner and which admitted not had been done in this case. 7. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have, in their reply to the show cause notice, controverted the contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner was specifically called upon to submit his bio-data's by stating true facts but since he had been convicted by the Court of law for offence under Sections 147, 448, 323 and 336, Indian Penal Code and thereafter released on probation, he is not entitled for payment of consequential benefits for the period in dispute, i.e., 13.4.1994 to 2.4.1995. It has further been contended that the petitioner was given appointment vide order, dated 8.6.1993 subject to clarification regarding his character and antecedents from the police department and as such it was not necessary to provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant documents on the record. 9. Prima facie I am of the view that in view of the reinstatement of the petitioner by the respondents in terms of the order dated 28.3.1995 in pursuance of which the petitioner had resumed his duties as junior accountant in the office of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 3.4.1995, he was entitled for payment of his salary dues for the period in dispute, i.e., 13.4.1994 to 2.4.1995, particularly when the respondents themselves had set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from service. 1 am fortified in my observations from the Division Bench judgment of this court dated 6.7.1988 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 71/1977 wherein similar controversy had arisen for consideration of this court. In the said case the petitioner had challenged his conviction in respect of offence under Section 10(n) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 whereby he was sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment by the competent authority and as a consequence of the said conviction the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which was decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tonk and the learned appellate Court vide its order, dated 22.9.1991 while maintaining the conviction of the appellant had extended the benefit of probation to the appellant under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before this court vide D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 71/1977 and this Court vide its order, dated 6.7.1988 while allowing the writ petition observed as under:- "Since the petitioner's dismissal from service is admittedly for the reason of his conviction under Section 10(n) of the C.R.P.F. Act as aforesaid, the disqualification so attracted has been removed by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. This being the only reason for his dismissal, the same cannot be sustained." 10. This being the only reason for his dismissal, the same cannot be sustained." 10. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid observations of the learned Division Bench of this Court and in my considered opinion the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully attracted to this case. 11. Consequently the writ petition is allowed with the direction that since the petitioner has already been reinstated in service by the respondents on the post of junior accountant in terms of the order, dated 28.3.1995 passed by the respondent, he is entitled to payment of his salary dues for the period in dispute, i.e. 13.4.1994 with continuity in service. The petitioner shall further be entitled to all the consequential benefits which may be admissible to him in accordance with the rules. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******