JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have head Sri M.K. Upadhyay, for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for increase in the subsistence allowance in accordance with law, and to decide his representation, which is recommended by the Additional Director, Treasuries and Pension, Allahabad. 3. The petitioner was serving as Accounts Officer in the Office of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur. On 6.5.1995, he was caught red handed in a trap case by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, and was placed under suspension. A criminal case was registered against him under Section7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is continuing under suspension for last 15 years. 4. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 in Special Case No. 110 of 1997. The judgment dated 28.11.2006, convicting him of the offence under Section 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentencing him for 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and Rs. 5,000/- fine have been challenged by him in Criminal Appeal No. 7725 of 2006. By an order dated 14.12.2006, the learned judge hearing Criminal Appeal has passed an order directing the appellant be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below, and the execution of the sentence has been stayed, during pendency of the appeal. 5. The petitioner is entitled for revision of the rates of subsistence allowance, which he was getting, recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission. In the present case, however, the petitioner was convicted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2006 (before the revision of pay and allowances by the Sixth Pay Commission). A Government servant convicted on a criminal charge, involving moral turpitude, such as corruption, is not entitled to continue in service. The procedure for imposing major penalties, under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 is not applicable where the major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Proviso (i) to clause (xii) of Rule 7 authorizes the disciplinary authority, to impose major penalty on corruption. 6. The order dated 14.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 7725 of 2006 does not stay the conviction of the petitioner. Proviso (i) to clause (xii) of Rule 7 authorizes the disciplinary authority, to impose major penalty on corruption. 6. The order dated 14.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 7725 of 2006 does not stay the conviction of the petitioner. The High Court has only stayed the sentence, and has directed the petitioner to be released on bail. The petitioner is not allowed to take the benefit of the order dated 14.12.2006, to avoid major penalty. 7. In Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 SCC 574 , following K.C. Sarin v. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 594; B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC 231 ; and Ravikant S Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673 , the Supreme Court held as follows : “... when conviction is on a corruption charge, it would be a sublime public policy that the convicted person is kept under disability of the conviction instead of keeping the sentence of the imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. In such cases, it is obvious that it would be highly improper to suspend the order of conviction of a public servant, which would enable him to occupy the same office which he misused.” 8. In our opinion, a person convicted on charges of corruption should not be allowed to continue in service until his conviction is set aside by appellate Court. The High Court in appeal has not stayed the conviction of the petitioner. 9. After close of arguments, the petitioner wanted to withdraw the writ petition. We decline to grant the prayer. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the standing counsel for necessary directions. —————