JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.:- By the present Letters Patents Appeal, the appellant is assailing order dated 9.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing CWP No.6454 of 2009. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was convicted under the Prevention of corruption Act; during the investigation, the appellant was placed under suspension by the Collector, Kaithal on 23.7.1996. However, he was reinstated in service on 24.4.1997. The appellant preferred an appeal before this Court against the judgement of conviction dated 3.8.2000 and that appeal is still pending. The Collector vide order dated 21.9.2000 decided not to terminate the services of the appellant despite the fact that the appellant stood convicted vide order dated 3.8.2000, by learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 6.6.2006 dismissed the appellant from service on the basis of conviction order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Order of the Collector was challenged by statutory appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 18.10.2006 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed to reinstate him. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary Revenue, Government of Haryana vide order dated 23.12.2008 directed the Commissioner to review his order dated 18.10.2006 on the ground that order of conviction has not been stayed. Therefore, there was no bar against dismissing the appellant in pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.3. The Commissioner vide order dated 31.3.2009 reviewed his earlier order of reinstatement and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant from service. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement declined to interfere with the dismissal order, hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, the appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgement dated 3.8.2000 and was directed to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act. Undisputedly, conviction/sentence order passed against the appellant has not been stayed. Undisputedly, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable remedy. Undisputedly, conviction/sentence order passed against the appellant has not been stayed. Undisputedly, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable remedy. In view of the fact that the appellant was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge as well as by the Commissioner. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Financial Commissioner had absolutely no jurisdiction to direct the Commissioner to review its earlier order, is not being examined by us in view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Dismissed. --------------