JUDGMENT 1. This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 7.10.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.435/Jodhpur/2012. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent Government Servant was employed as Extra Departmental Agent at Post Office, Nakore on 13.8.1997. By a notice dated 21.6.2011 he was called upon to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 332 Indian Penal Code under the judgment dated 27.7.2006 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pratapgarh and also being convicted in one other case i.e. 172/1994. The respondent Government Servant responded the notice with assertion that in case No.172/1994 he was subjected to a fine of Rs. 50/- under an order dated 14.3.1995 and that was a case with regard to some land dispute with his real brother. It was also stated by him that the case aforesaid was decided on 14.3.1995 i.e. quite earlier to his entrance in service. With regard to other case the applicant stated that learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 20.7.2006 extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 2000 and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- only against the prosecution expenses and, therefore, there is no need to dismiss him from service. The disciplinary authority by order dated 17.8.2011 dismissed the Government Servant from service by stating that a person convicted cannot be allowed to continue in service. The appeal preferred by the Government Servant also came to be rejected. 3. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal the Government Servant while pressing the original application urged that (1)the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned order; and (2)the cases on which the department relied, are of minor nature and in no case are sufficient to impose a severest penalty of dismissal and as per the direction given by the Department of Personnel and Training the disciplinary authority while examining all cases where a Government Servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, must consider whether his conduct that led to his conviction was such as warrants imposition of a penalty and if so, what the penalty should be. In the case in hand no such consideration at all was made. 4. In the case in hand no such consideration at all was made. 4. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal while accepting the original application held as under:- "It is well settled principle of law that while imposing the penalties the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the entire conduct of the applicant whether its amount of offence of moral turpitude or it is a very grave misconduct committed by the applicant. ..... ..... The respondents ought to have considered the entire conduct of the applicant and merely on the ground of pendency of the cases and order of imposition of fees and order of extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act it was not sufficient to pass the order of removal of the services because the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ought to have considered other related circumstances also." 5. It is well settled that on basis of the conduct that led to conviction of a Government Servant is a reason sufficient to dispense with the regular inquiry and further to impose a penalty of dismissal from service, however, for doing so the disciplinary authority must examine conduct that led to conviction. In the case in hand the disciplinary authority has not at all examined the conduct and merely on the count of conviction the Government Servant has been subject to severest punishment. From perusal of the facts available on record it also reveals that conduct of the applicant was also not of such a serious nature that would have demanded imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, specially in the circumstances that the Government Servant was discharging his duties satisfactorily since 1997. 6. In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Tribunal. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with no order to costs.Petitioner Dismissed. *******