The petitioner was proceeded against in a criminal trial. This was under Section 304 Part-II of the Penal Code. He was found guilty of the offence but was released on probation. This happened on 24th April 2000. Petitioner, on account of this trial was placed under suspension. This is not in dispute. Thereafter on 30th Dec2000, the petitioner was dismissed from service. An order to this effect passed on the aforesaid date has been placed on the record as Annexure F. For facility of reference, the operative part of the order is being reproduced below:- "The conviction of the member of a disciplined force amounts to disqualification even though he is released on probation and he cannot be re-instated into service after his conviction. Since ...... Mohd. Iqbal has been convicted under section 304-II/RPC he cannot be taken back into service. In view of the above, it is hereby ordered that Sg.Ct. Mohd. Iqbal No. 286/U is "Dismissed" from the services with immediate effect." 2. The questions which are required to be gone into are: (i) As to whether the petitioners service could be brought to an end merely because he was found guilty of having committed an offence under Section 304-II of the Penal Code: (ii) As to what is the effect of probation having been given to the petitioner in terms of the Probation of Offenders Act; (iii) As to whether the conviction alone is good and sufficient to pass an order of dismissal or it is the conduct which leads to conviction, which is required to be taken note of and as to whether when action is taken on the basis of judgement of a criminal court, then something more was required to be done i.e, whether the conviction or it is the conduct itself which leads to conviction which is to be taken note of. 3. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case reported as AIR 1973 P&H 1, Om Parkash v. The Director Postal Services (Posts and Telegraphs Deptt.) Punjab Circle Ambala & Ors. The scope of Probation of Offenders Act was taken note of. It was observed that departmental punishment of a Government servant is not an automatic consequence of a judgement of conviction. The conclusions arrived at in para 21 of the judgement are relevant and noticed. The scope of Probation of Offenders Act was taken note of. It was observed that departmental punishment of a Government servant is not an automatic consequence of a judgement of conviction. The conclusions arrived at in para 21 of the judgement are relevant and noticed. The conclusions which are relevant are reproduced below:- "i/ The departmental punishment of removal or dismissal from Government service is not an essential and automatic consequence of conviction on a criminal charge; ii/ The authority competent to take disciplinary action under Rule 19(i) of the 1965 Rules against a Central Government servant convicted on a criminal charge has to consider all the circumstances of the case and then to decide (a) whether the conduct of the delinquent official which led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in public service undesirable; (b) if so, whether to dismiss him or to remove him from service, or to compulsorily retire him; and (c) if the said conduct of the official is not such which renders his further retention in service undesirable, whether the minor punishment, if any, should be inflicted on him; ...................... (iv) to be retained in Government service or to remain in service is not a qualification, but a right in certain circumstances subject to the relevant constitutional provisions and service rules; (v) the liability to be departmentally punished for conduct which had led to the conviction of the employee does not attach to the conviction, but attaches to the original conduct (misconduct) which constituted the offence of which the official has been convicted. ......... (viii) Section 12 of the Act does not wash away or obliterate the conduct of the employee which had led to his conviction, and does not, therefore, give him any immunity against departmental proceedings, nor exonerates him from his liability to departmental punishment for such conduct if it amounts to misconduct under the relevant service rules. (ix) the original misconduct of a Government servant does not merge with his conviction so as to become non-existent after conviction. ......... (xiii) an order imposing a punishment on a Government servant simply because of his conviction on a Criminal charge without reference to the conduct which led to the conviction cannot be sustained....." 4. (ix) the original misconduct of a Government servant does not merge with his conviction so as to become non-existent after conviction. ......... (xiii) an order imposing a punishment on a Government servant simply because of his conviction on a Criminal charge without reference to the conduct which led to the conviction cannot be sustained....." 4. The decision given in the above case stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway and another v. T.R. Challappan, AIR 1975 SC 2216. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that conviction of a delinquent employee simpliciter without anything more would not result in his automatic dismissal or removal from service. 5. So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the judgement of criminal court. What was required to be taken note of was the conduct which led to his conviction. This did not happen in this case. Therefore, what is said by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Parkashs case (supras), which stands approved by the Supreme Court of India would stand fully attracted to the facts of this case. Order Annexure F is accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall stand reinstated in service. He shall start getting his salary w.e.f, the date, he produces a copy of the order before the authority which passed the order impugned. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to hold an enquiry and pass a fresh order. Disposed of accordingly.