SBCWP No.4125/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4125/2010. Ummedi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : April 19, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. P.C. Jain for the petitioner. **** BY THE COURT :- Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that having passed the order dated 3/11/2009, Superintendent of Police, Alwar could not have subsequently decide to remove the petitioner on the ground of his conviction because earlier on several occasions despite conviction of the petitioner he was placed under suspension and on number of times, his suspension order was revoked and then he was again placed under suspension. By the aforesaid order dated 3/11/2009, Superintendent of Police, Alwar directed that petitioner shall stand retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/7/2010. Learned counsel submitted that prior to passing of the order dated 8/3/2010 removing petitioner from service, Superintendent of Police, Alwar was required to serve upon the petitioner notice calling upon him to show cause why he may not SBCWP No.4125/10. 2 be removed. It is contended that petitioner could not be removed from service only on the ground of misconduct which led to his conviction because in criminal appeal filed by him, sentence has been suspended. Perusal of the impugned-order shows that petitioner was conicted for offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Mere suspension of sentence does not obliterate the effect of conviction and that exception clause given in Article 311 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply in such cases. Conviction as envisaged in Article 311 would still be a conviction even if appeal is pending and sentence is suspended. Impugned-order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar on that basis to remove the petitioner without holding any departmental enquiry cannot be faulted. It was not necessary in such matters to issue show cause notice before passing the order of removal because the petitioner does not dispute the fact regarding his conviction. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil