A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Sudama Ji Shandilya, assisted by Shri Vivek Shandilya, Advocates on behalf of the petitioner. ( 2 ) A copy of the writ petition has been served before filing ink the registry in the office of Shri vivek Saran, Advocate, representing the Regional Manager, UP. State Road Transport corporation, Jhansi Region, Jhansi (Respondent) as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 second proviso, Rules of Court of the Allahabad High Court, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. ( 3 ) PETITIONER, Dhruv Ram, was employed as Driver by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short called the corporation) and posted in the Jhansi Region. He was implicated in a criminal case (Crime Case No. 550 of 1996 under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 (1) and 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act and he was sent to jail on January 5, 1996. He was suspended on February 8, 1996. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on August 21, 1998. Judgment of conviction was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 1998 before this Court. An interim order dated November, 2, 1998 has been passed in the said Criminal Appeal (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is alleged that the judgment of the sessions Judge dated August 21, 1998 was suspended on April 20, 1999 by this Court. ( 4 ) AS stated above, when petitioner was taken into custody and sent to jail, he was suspended by the department. It further appears that the Assistant Regional Manager, Oral was centrusted with the enquiry inasmuch as the employer decided to proceed with the departmental enquiry also. After the judgment of the Sessions Judge dated August 21, 1998, the Regional Manager issued show cause notice dated November 13, 1998 requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of the said show cause notice shows that the sole basis of issuing show cause notice was that petitioner having been found guilty of the offences and convicted by the Session Court, hamirpur, Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6 and 7 in the charge-sheet stood proved. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of the said show cause notice shows that the sole basis of issuing show cause notice was that petitioner having been found guilty of the offences and convicted by the Session Court, hamirpur, Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6 and 7 in the charge-sheet stood proved. It appears that the petitioner thereafter filed copy of the interim order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal, referred to above and again another show cause notice was issued requiring him to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service and the balance of the emoluments during the suspension period be forfeited. Petitioner submitted his reply dated December 19, 1998 (Annexure-5 to the petition ). The sole contention raised by the petitioner in his reply was to the effect that he should be reinstated in service and no adverse order be passed against him in view of the interim order passed by this Court in appeal (details of which have been give above ). The Respondent passed the order dated December 31, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition)observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was to procrastinate the matter. The impugned order itself mentions that disciplinary enquiry could not be completed since the petitioner was in jail. ( 6 ) CHARGES against the petitioner are very serious and grave in nature and it is in the interest of justice that disciplinary enquiry itself be completed in accordance with law. In the present case, it appears, that the Respondent, without fully appreciating the practical aspect of the case and further without appreciating the true import of the relevant law governing disciplinary enquiry issued show cause notice dated November 13, 1998 (Annexure-4) requiring petitioner to submit his explanation to the limited question as to why he be not removed from service and his arrears of emoluments pertaining to the suspension period be forfeited. Petitioner submitted his reply dated December 19, 1998 (admittedly received by the Respondent on December 23, 1998) with respect tot he limited question raised in the said show cause notice. From the notice mentioned in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto it is apparent that no effective enquiry could be held when the petitioner was arrested and placed behind bars in pursuance to the criminal case. From the notice mentioned in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto it is apparent that no effective enquiry could be held when the petitioner was arrested and placed behind bars in pursuance to the criminal case. Once petitioner has been released under the interim order passed by his Court in criminal appeal challenging judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hamipur, the Respondent ought to have required to submit his defence and thus afforded an effective opportunity of hearing as contemplated under relevant rules after holding enquiry as required under law. Respondent could proceeded to take further action by giving opportunity only. ( 7 ) IT is fairly conceded on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary enquiry can proceed irrespective of the pendency of criminal appeal in this Court. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner initially relied upon the decision of this Court reported in vijai Prasad Pandey v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1043 , in support of his submission that it will be improper to pass an order of dismissal during pendency of criminal case/appeal. The said decision was with respect to an employee of the police department and the service matters were governed by Police Regulations wherein Regulation 492 provided that a police officer, whenever judicially tried, could not be confronted with disciplinary action and the superintendent must await decision of the judicial appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, failed to show any similar provision with regard to the employees of the Corporation. The said decision is clearly distinguishable and the ratio therein cannot be applied to the present case. ( 9 ) PETITIONER then sought to place reliance on the decision reported in Shyam Narain Shukla and anr. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1989) 2 UPLBEC 418. It has been held in the said by a Division bench of this Court, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court, that whenever a Government servant is convicted of an offence, he cannot be dismissed from service merely on the ground of conviction but the appropriate authority has to consider the conduct of such employee leading to his conviction and then to decide what punishment is to be inflicted upon him. It is further observed that in the matter of consideration of conduct as also the quantum of punishment the employee has not to be joined and the decision has to be taken by the appropriate authority independently of the employee. The said decision further laid down the criterion, when an illegal order of termination is set aside, for granting arrears and whether an employee can be treated under suspension. ( 10 ) IN the case of Mohan Lal v. State of U. P. , (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1141 , a Division Bench of this court held that appellate Court cannot stay conviction and it can merely suspend conviction and hence an employee (accused) does get no right to get the order of dismissal modified or set aside. ( 11 ) HAVING come to the conclusion that petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing and that order dated December 31, 1998 of termination has been passed virtually treating order of conviction as proving the charges contained in the charge-sheet issued by the department and further narration of facts in the said order itself that enquiry could not be completed due to the petitioner being in jail, the impugned order of termination dated December 31, 1998 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated December 31, 1998 is quashed with the direction to the Respondent to initiate disciplinary enquiry giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under relevant rules. Such an enquiry shall be completed within three months of the receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Question of payment of arrears during period of suspension shall be considered by the concerned authority in view of the criterion laid down in the decision of 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1141 (supra ). The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this judgment upon the Respondent within three weeks from today. .