ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Special leave granted. 3. The Union of India has come up in appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Misc. P. No. 18491 of 2002 dated 19-3-2004 whereby an application filed for modification/quashing of a part of the order dated 13-3-2000 passed earlier by the High Court was rejected by the High Court. By order dated 13-3-2000 in Crl. Revision No.6 of 2000, which was sought to be modified, the High Court while finding the respondent guilty of the charge under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act upheld the conviction and sentence passed against Respondent 2. However, it directed that Respondent 2 being a government employee the order of conviction will not affect the service career including the retiral benefits. The last part of the direction made by the learned Judge was impugned in Crl. MP No. 18491 of 2002 which has been disposed of by the impugned order holding that the order could not be altered in view of the provisions under Section 362 CrPC. 4. We have perused the order passed by the High Court dated 13-3-2000. The High Court while exercising its criminal jurisdiction could either have convicted the accused or acquitted him of the charge levelled against him, and could pass any other order which it is authorised to pass in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. However, in exercise of such jurisdiction it could not have issued a direction that the conviction of the respondent will not affect his service career, because the High Court in exercising its criminal jurisdiction has no authority to prevent the legal consequences which follow the conviction of a government servant. Those are matters governed by the Service Rules, and the Service Rules must be allowed to operate in such cases. We, therefore, find that the direction contained in the last part of the order of the High Court dated 13-3-2000 was an order passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, must be treated as invalid and non est. We, therefore, allow this appeal and declare that the direction made by the High Court in Crl. We, therefore, find that the direction contained in the last part of the order of the High Court dated 13-3-2000 was an order passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, must be treated as invalid and non est. We, therefore, allow this appeal and declare that the direction made by the High Court in Crl. Revision No.6 of 2000 by order dated 13-3-2000 to the effect that the order of conviction will not affect the service career, including payment of retiral benefits to Respondent 2 shall be ignored by the authority concerned as being without jurisdiction, invalid and non est. The appeal is allowed.