JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is to set aside the order dated 23.04.2014 vide which the services of the petitioner were dismissed; with a further direction to allow him to continue in service with consequential benefits. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment and order dated 24.2.2014. 3. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such a dismissal cannot be automatic. The authority must peruse the judgment passed by the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case before dismissal or removal of the service of the petitioner and also impose lesser punishment rather than the dismissal from service. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Darshan Singh, Ex Head Constable v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.9847 of 2015) decided on 18.10.2016. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained in view of the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors. :: (1997) 4 SCC 565 while taking into consideration that the job in a bank is in public interest and to achieve the object of nationalisation and for any conduct that damages the said purpose deserves disciplinary action went on to hold as under:- "Corruption has taken deep roots among the sections of the society and the employees holding public office or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt conduct in the discharge of their official duty for illegal gratification. The banking business and services are also vitally affected by catastrophic corruption the disciplinary measure should, therefore, aim to eradicate the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in the public offices including those in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider, from this perspective, the need for disciplinary actions to eradicate corruption to properly channelise the use of the public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio-economic justice in order to achieve to constitutional goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to de-nationalisation of the banking system." 7. Similarly, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Uday Narain Sachan & Ors. 2015(6)ADJ 1234 while considering the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 as well as Shankar Dass v. Union of India 1985 (2) SCC 358 held that public interest was paramount. Paras 8 & 9 of the said judgment are relevant: "8. This was followed by another decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court has explained and expounded upon legal position. The decision in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera involved a conviction under Section 420 of the Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In that case, the Tribunal had quashed an order of dismissal which had been passed following a conviction on the ground that until an appeal against the order of conviction is disposed of, action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was not permissible. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal Court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher Court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice." 9. In a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Government of A P v. B. Jagjeevan Rao, the Supreme Court considered a case where there was a conviction of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 following which, the appellant had been dismissed from service. The High Court had set aside the action. The High Court had set aside the action. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law and keeping in view the expected standard of administration, conviction on the charge of corruption has to be viewed seriously and unless the conviction is annulled, an employer cannot be compelled to take an employee back in service..." 8. The argument that the appeal against the said order is pending does not help. The learned Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Dharampal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No.12030 of 2010) relying on the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court held thus:- "Counsel has asserted that against the order of conviction, he has preferred an appeal before this Court, in which the sentence imposed upon the petitioner stands suspended and the petitioner has been released on bail by this Court which would entitle him to be reinstated in service. This argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras (supra) where this very issue was considered in detail and it was held that merely because the sentence has been suspended or the convict has been released on bail by the Appellate Court does not render clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution inoperative rather action must be taken under this provision just after conviction without waiting for conclusion of appeal/revision or other remedies. Reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar, 1997(11) SCC 383 can also be made where again it has been held that challenge to the order of dismissal on the ground that appeal against conviction is pending in the High Court and the sentence is suspended cannot be a ground for an employee to be reinstated in service. A Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar Sikka v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula and others, 2006(1) SCT 186 has held that once a Government servant is convicted on a criminal charge of corruption, his dismissal from service is an automatic consequence of convict. A Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar Sikka v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula and others, 2006(1) SCT 186 has held that once a Government servant is convicted on a criminal charge of corruption, his dismissal from service is an automatic consequence of convict. It is not desirable to retain such person any more in service merely because an appeal has been preferred in which sentence has been suspended and the convict has been released on bail. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the setting aside of the order of dismissal of the petitioner or keeping it in abeyance till the decision of the appeal preferred by him. " 9. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly a Patwari in the Revenue Department. The allegation of corruption having been proved against him, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent-department in passing an order of dismissal. It would be highly unsafe and undesirable to retain a person in the department who is found guilty of corruption. A Patwari is having public dealing and the landed property of people residing in the rural areas. They are at the mercy of the Patwari. The disciplinary action must follow in case of a person who is found guilty of corruption. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.