Judgment Per Virender Singh, C.J.: I.A. No.4513 of 2014 Since there is a delay of only 32 days in filing the accompanied Letters Patent Appeal, the instant application has been moved for condonation of the said delay. 2. Not only learned Counsel for the respondents have not raised any objection in allowing this application, even otherwise the applicant-appellant has been able to carve out sufficient grounds for the said delay. 3. Viewed thus, we hereby allow the instant application and condone the delay of 32 days in filing the accompanied appeal. 4. I.A. No.4513 of 2014 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No.188 of 2014 5. Appellant-Rashik Lal Besra is the writ petitioner (for short hereinafter to be referred to as 'petitioner' only). He was dismissed from service vide order dated 16th August, 2010 passed by District Superintendent of Education-cum-Member of District Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, (Respondent No.7 herein) on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. Aggrieved of the said order of dismissal, he knocked at the door of Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No.7304 of 2011 which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 7th of March, 2014. Hence, the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 6. We have taken up the main appeal on board for its final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides. 7. Heard Mr. M.K.Dey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Shankar, Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. appearing for the State of Jharkhand. 8. Admitted position before us is that the petitioner was booked in a case bearing F.I.R. No. 161/1992 of Police Station Mohanpur for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. in which he was convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 5th April, 1995. He was placed under suspension during the period of his custody right from 1t August, 1992. After suffering conviction, he preferred appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.74/1995 before the Patna High Court which also met the same fate on 22nd of February, 2000. He thereafter knocked at the doors of Hon'ble Supreme Court impugning the said judgment and his conviction was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court also. It is, thereafter, the order of dismissal from service was slapped upon him. He thereafter knocked at the doors of Hon'ble Supreme Court impugning the said judgment and his conviction was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court also. It is, thereafter, the order of dismissal from service was slapped upon him. The learned Writ Court, after taking all these aspects into consideration, held that as per the terms of service rules, no show cause notice was required to be served upon the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal from service. 9. Mr. Dey, learned Senior Advocate submits that in fact the respondents had convened a meeting to consider the matter relating to promotion of certain teachers on 17.07.2010 and that the case of the petitioner was never in the agenda but suddenly a decision was taken for dismissing him from service. He further submits that even the quorum was not complete for convening the meeting on 17.07.2010 and therefore, any decision taken on that day would be non est in the eye of law. Mr. Dey thus submits that the impugned order of learned Writ Court confirming the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner is not sustainable. 10. Arguments are opposed by learned counsel for the respondents vehemently. 11. We are not in agreement with the submissions advanced by Mr. Dey. The irregularity, if any, committed by the Committee, even of not completing the quorum, would not change the complexion of the case at all when the conviction of the petitioner has been affirmed even up to Supreme Court that too in a very serious charge of Section 302 I.P.C. 12. An order of dismissal from service can be passed of a Government servant, even in a situation when his substantive sentence is suspended by the appellate court after conviction as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration, Madras v. S.Nagoor Meera reported as AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1364. There is a reference to this decision in the dismissal order also slapped upon the petitioner and taken note of by the learned Writ Court in its impugned judgment. 13. Viewed thus, we find no reason, much less good reason, to disturb the well reasoned judgment of the learned Writ Court. 14. Dismissed.