Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 26.9.2005, Annexure P. 1, dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was employed as Lineman with the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was convicted on 7.3.2001 for forgery and appeal against the said order was dismissed. However, his sentence was suspended on 26.7.2005 by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 963 of 2005. Still, he has been dismissed from service for the conduct leading to his conviction. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order was illegal in view of DB judgment of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. Board of School Education, Haryana and another, 1996(4) RSJ 417. 4. In the reply filed, the impugned order has been defended on the ground that the petitioner having been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, could not be retained in service. 5. On 5.2.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time for seeking stay of conviction but no such stay has been brought to our notice. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that mere pendency of appeal or revision against conviction of a public servant cannot be a ground to continue a public servant in service. Such a course will erode the confidence of people in public institutions. Suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction. Reference may be made to judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI. Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320, Para 11, B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamilnadu. AIR 2001 SC 3435 , paras 34, 40 and 58 and Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and others, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , Para 70. The misconduct for which the petitioner has been convicted, is serious and imposition of punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate. 8. The judgment in Rajinder Singh (supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. Therein, it was observed that the employer must apply his mind to the misconduct leading to conviction of the employee and the order of dismissal should not follow automatically without application of mind. In the present case, it cannot be held that there is no application of mind. Therein, it was observed that the employer must apply his mind to the misconduct leading to conviction of the employee and the order of dismissal should not follow automatically without application of mind. In the present case, it cannot be held that there is no application of mind. The impugned order shows that the misconduct of the petitioner has been duly gone into and the misconduct having been held to call for dismissal, the order of dismissal has been passed accordingly. In view of above, the petition is dismissed.