IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9666 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2009 Lakhwinder Pal Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner initially joined the services of the respondent- Punjab State Electricity Board on 3.8.1987 as Lineman. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 17.5.1988, and thereafter, he was promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 29.8.2008. When the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, a criminal case under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him on the allegation of taking bribe of Rs.5000/-. In that case, he has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced for two years R.I. with a fine of Rs.5000/-. On his conviction, the services of the petitioner have been terminated under the P.S.E.B. Employees Punishments and Appeal Regulations, 1971 vide impugned order dated 2.4.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. It is the case of the petitioner that against the said judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been admitted by this Court and C.W.P. No.9666 of 2009 -2- during the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of the petitioner has been suspended. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the said order, the termination of the services of the petitioner on the basis of his conviction, is illegal and contrary, and the same is liable to be quashed. Under the P.S.E.B. Employees Punishments and Appeal Regulations, 1971, the competent authority can terminate the services of an employee in case he has been convicted for a criminal offence without holding the regular enquiry. In the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence of taking bribe. Concededly, the conviction of the petitioner has not been stayed by the Appellate Court, though his sentence has been suspended and his appeal against conviction is still pending. In view of these facts, in my view, no interference is required in the impugned order of termination on the ground that before passing the order of termination, an opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. No merits. Dismissed. July 08, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE