JUDGMENT 1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.14612 and 14613 of 2009 as the common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions. 2. The petitioner joined Food Corporation of India on 6.10.1975 as temporary Staff and after regularising of the service with effect from 1.8.1976, the petitioner was promoted as AG-II (Accounts) in December 1981. 3. The petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case and was suspended on 12.5.1988. 4. The petitioner challenged the prolonged suspension by filing W.P.No.14916 of 1993 which was allowed by this Court. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court in quashing the order of suspension, the petitioner rejoined duty and continued on the post till he was dismissed from service vide impugned order. 5. The allegation against the petitioner was of claiming false medical reimbursement bill, and also honouring false medical bill of 7 other persons. The petitioner was alleged to have claimed bogus medical claim of Rs.38,465.44 (Rupees thirty eight thosand four hundred and sixty five and paise forty four only) on false and fabricated records. 6. The Hon'ble Principal Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai vide order, dated 6.2.2009 in C.C.No.32 of 1997 convicted the petitioner along with others and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) on various counts as detailed hereinunder: 120-B r/w 420 IPC 3 yrs R.I. Rs.10,000/- i/d 1 yr R.I. 468 I.P.C. 3 yrs R.I. Rs.10,000/- i/d 1 yr R.I. 467 R/W 471 I.P.C. 3 yrs R.I. Rs.15,000/- i/d 1 yr R.I. 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) PC Act, 3 yrs R.I. Rs.20,000/- i/d 1½ yrs R.I. 1947 Total Rs.55,000/- The petitioner deposited the fine and filed a Crl. Appeal No.111 of 2009 in which petitioner was granted bail, but nothing has been stated whether conviction of the petitioner was suspended by this Court or not. 7. The submission of the petitioner is that during pendency of the appeal, the impugned order was passed ordering dismissal of the petitioner from service, in view of his conduct leading to the conviction. 8. Challenge to Regulation 63(1) by the petitioner is on the ground that Regulation 63(1) is based on Rule 19 of Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rule. 8. Challenge to Regulation 63(1) by the petitioner is on the ground that Regulation 63(1) is based on Rule 19 of Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rule. The Food Corporation of India has failed to incorporate proviso added to Rule 19 by the Central Government by issuing notification No.11012/13/86-Estt.(A), dated 11.3.1987, providing for opportunity of hearing before passing the order of punishment, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule19. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that Regulation 63(1) of the Food Corporation of India is ultra vires of the Constitution of India, as it gives arbitrary powers to respondents to terminate employee on conviction by the criminal Court without giving opportunity of hearing. 10. The impugned order is challenged on the ground of the order being in violation of principle of natural justice, as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to explain his position with regard to his conviction. 11. It is contended that mandatory on the part of the respondents to see the nature of the offences and the sentence awarded and to follow doctrine of dis-proportionality before imposing punishment. In support of the contention, that order of dismissal from service on conviction is not automatic, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Hazarilal (2008) 3 SCC 273 ). 12. On consideration, I find no force in these two writ petitions. Merely because the proviso added to Central Civil Services classification Control and Appeal Rules, is not added to Regulation 63(1), cannot be a ground to declare the Rule to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India. In view of the settled law that in the given circumstances and facts of the case, the principle of natural justice can be read the provisions. It is settled law that interpretation which upholds the constitutional validity rather than the one which will lead to declaring the regulation to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India is to be followed. 13. Regulation 63 of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation Act, 1971, therefore, cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India as contended as it is always open to read the principle of natural justice to be inbuilt to exercise powers under this regulation. 14. 13. Regulation 63 of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation Act, 1971, therefore, cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India as contended as it is always open to read the principle of natural justice to be inbuilt to exercise powers under this regulation. 14. The question now arises for consideration is whether the impugned order calls for any interference by this Court. It is true that in this case, no notice was issued to the petitioner before imposing punishment of dismissal from service, but at the same time, reading of the order shows that the competent authority has taken into consideration, the conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction for imposing punishment of dismissal. 15. It is not in dispute that in this case petitioner was held guilty of offence punishable under section 120(b) read with 420, 467 read with 470 I.P.C. and 5(e), 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Offences proved against the petitioner was very serious and involved moral turptitude and conduct leading to conviction of the petitioner therefore, resulted in dismissal of the petitioner from service. 16. In view of the conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as also offences punishable under section 420, 467 read with 471 leaves no manner of doubt that the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved offences, to attract the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Hazarilal (supra). 17. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was modified by the appellate Court, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 18. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner again cannot be accepted. To decide the question as to whether the person facing criminal trial is to be retained in service or not, the competent authority has to see the conduct leading to his conviction and see if the conduct involve moral turpitude. In case of employee guilty of offence involving moral turptitude, cannot be retained in service. 19. It is not disputed that the conviction of the petitioner by Special Court for CBI cases stands upheld by this Court, and that the conviction has attained finality. No merit, dismissed. No costs.