JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.:- The petitioner, who was a dismissed employee on account of conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC has made a challenge by means of a writ petition to his dismissal on the ground that it was against the principles of natural justice and that the dismissal was summary in nature without any enquiry. The case had been adjourned sine die to await the decision of the criminal revision pending against the order of conviction. The order of the High Court passed in Criminal Revision No.521 of 1990 has been placed on file that reveals that the petitioner was only pleading for being let off on probation so that his retiral benefits are not affected in any way. It was brought out at the time of disposal of the criminal case before the High Court that the petitioner was 48 years of age at the time of the criminal proceedings in the year 1987 and he must have retired from the service at the time when the Court was passing the order on 04.12.2002. The Court, therefore, observed, accepting a plea on behalf of the counsel, that he could be let off on probation so that the petitioner would have the benefit of at least terminal benefits from being forfeited. 2. The issue of whether there could have been a termination of service on the ground of conviction in criminal case essentially depends on the relevant conduct rules and there is nothing inherently wrong about a management dismissing an employee from service for conviction in a criminal case, if the Rules permitted such a course. In this case, the conviction was modified as one for discharge on probation. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes the stigma of conviction and consequently, the basis of removal from service itself would stand discharged. Even at the time when the Court was passing an order in criminal revision case, the Court has observed that the revision petitioner must have crossed the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, there is no scope for directing reinstatement. 3. Even at the time when the Court was passing an order in criminal revision case, the Court has observed that the revision petitioner must have crossed the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, there is no scope for directing reinstatement. 3. The respondent is directed to take note of the order of release of the petitioner on probation and if the termination of service was without reference to any enquiry, but only on the basis of criminal court conviction, the modification of conviction on being let off on probation must be considered as relevant for recalling the order of termination and treating the petitioner as having been continued in service for working out the terminal benefits. On the principle of ‘no work no pay’, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period when he was not in service. The accrued terminal benefits would be calculated and paid to the petitioner with interest at 9% within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The liability for interest shall arise only from the date of passing of this order, since the petitioner himself could have taken steps to have the case listed for disposal on the basis of change of circumstance that was brought about by the reversal of order of conviction. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------