Judgment 1. The petitioner was working as a Jeep Driver. He was accused of murdering three subordinate staffs in the Forest range. A criminal case was filed against him which was tried by the Sessions Court, Salem in S.C.No.200 of 94. The sessions Court by a judgment dated 08.09.1995 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years. Immediately on receipt of the information of conviction, the respondent by a final order dated 12.05.1997 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner gave a representation dated 211. 1996 stating that since he had filed an appeal before this Court against his conviction, he should not be proceeded with. Thereafter, he filed the present Original Application. 2. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal without any justification granted an interim order dated 31.03.1998. The stand of the Tribunal was that the Show Cause Notice was violative of Rule 17(c)(1)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in as much as the penalty was referred in the punishment. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.35197 of 2006. 4. With reference to the ground that pending a criminal appeal no punishment can be imposed, the very same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education v. S.Nagoor Meera reported in (1995) 3 SCC 377 . In that case, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of the conviction being stayed by a higher Court, merely because the sentence alone is suspended, the Court cannot forbear the authority from passing an appropriate penalty order treating the sentence imposed by the Trial Court as conviction coming within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the first contention must fail. 5. With reference to the second contention that in the Show Cause Notice, penalty was mentioned is concerned, Rule 17 referred to by the Tribunal has got no value since the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 held in paragraph 69 held as follows: "69. Therefore, the first contention must fail. 5. With reference to the second contention that in the Show Cause Notice, penalty was mentioned is concerned, Rule 17 referred to by the Tribunal has got no value since the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 held in paragraph 69 held as follows: "69. As for the argument that in a case under clause (a) of the second proviso a government servant could be wrongly dismissed, removed or reduced in rank mistaking him for another with the same name unless he is given an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the disciplinary authority that he is not the individual who has been convicted, it can only be described as being too fanciful and far-fetched for though such a case of mistaken identity may be hypothetically possible, it is highly improbable. As in all other organisations, there is in government service an extremely active grape-vine, both departmental and inter-departmental, which is constantly active, humming and bumming with service news and office gossip, and it would indeed be strange if the news that a member of a department was facing prosecution or had been convicted were to remain a secret for long. Assuming such a case occurs, the government servant is not without any remedy. He can prove in a departmental appeal which service rules provide for, save in exceptional cases, that he has been wrongly mistaken for another. Similarly, it is not possible to accept the argument that unless a written explanation with respect to the charge is asked for form a government servant and his side of the case known, the penalty which would be imposed upon him, could be grossly out of proportion to his actual misconduct. The disciplinary authorities are expected to act justly and fairly after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and if they act arbitrarily and impose a penalty which is unduly excessive, capricious or vindictive, it can be set aside in a departmental appeal. In any event, the remedy by way of judicial review is always open to a government servant." (Emphasis added) 6. Under such circumstances, there is no need for the issuance of notice and the authority can straight away impose a punishment. In any event, the remedy by way of judicial review is always open to a government servant." (Emphasis added) 6. Under such circumstances, there is no need for the issuance of notice and the authority can straight away impose a punishment. If at all the petitioner has any right, it is for him to file an appeal against such penalty. When such is the case, there is no question of the petitioner relying upon Rule 17 as the basis for getting an interim or final order. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.