Honble SAXENA, J.–The petitioner was convicted under Section 380 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his judgment dated 23.6.86 and was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who by his judgment dated 3.2.89 maintained conviction of petitioner but instead of sentencing the petitioner he released the petitioner by giving him benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (2). Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of E.D. Stamp Vendor Rajasthan Secretariat Post Office, Jaipur vide his application dated 15.11.89. How- ever, in the attestation form he deliberately suppressed the fact that he was convicted under Section 380 IPC and did not give the correct and actual position. (3). The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (East), Sub- Division Jaipur after conducting necessary inquiry vide his order dated 24.12.90 (Annexure-1) held that the conduct of petitioner Bhagwan Singh which had led to his conviction, was such as to render his further retention in the public service undesirable. Therefore, he in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8-A of the P&T E.D. Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 removed the petitioner from the Services with immediate effect. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City Division Jaipur by his order dated 30.3.91 (Annexure-2) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Petitioners O.A. No. 102/92 was also dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide order dated 13.10.92 (Annexure-3). (4). The petitioner now after about 6 years, has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order Annexure 3 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. (5). We have heard Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the relevant record. The contention of Shri Gupta is that the petitioner was ignorant about the distinction between conviction and sentence. Since the Additional Sessions Judge had released him on probation by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, he thought that he was acquitted and therefore, he did not mention this factum of his conviction in his application dated 15.11.89. This argument is not at all tenable. Since the Additional Sessions Judge had released him on probation by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, he thought that he was acquitted and therefore, he did not mention this factum of his conviction in his application dated 15.11.89. This argument is not at all tenable. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner deliberately suppressed this fact of his conviction under Section 380 IPC, which amounts to moral turpitude and had he disclosed this fact in his application and the attestation form he would not have been appointed by the P&T Department as a E.D. Stamp Vendor. The con- cealment of his conviction by itself amounts to another misconduct. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or impropriety or error of jurisdiction in the orders Annexure 1 and 2 and also the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Moreover, this writ petition also suffers from vice of laches. This writ petition therefore, is without merit and is hereby dismissed.