THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16886 of 2010 Dated: 16-7-2010 Between: K.S.K.V.Prasad Rao …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and others. …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No. 5552 of 2007 is before this Court challenging an order dated 15-4-2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the O.A. The petitioner assailed before the Tribunal an order dated 11-4- 2007 of the 1st respondent and consequent proceedings dated 28-7- 2007 of the 2nd respondent dismissing him from service on account of his conviction by the Special Court for the trial of offences under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, Vijayawada, vide a judgment dated 16-11-2001 in C.C.No. 13 of 2000, exercising powers under Rule 48(5) of the A.P. Village Administrative Officers Service Rules. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.1000/- on the first count and for one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- on another count. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred an appeal. By the order dated 23-11-2001 in Crl.M.P.No. 6455 of 2001 this Court suspended the operation of the sentence, of imprisonment. The imposition of the fine as well as the conviction were still operative. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent herein exercising power under Rule 48(5) dismissed the petitioner from service. Rule 48(5) enjoins that the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) (incorporating a procedure for inquiry before visiting an employee with a major penalty) shall not apply where it is proposed to take action on a Village Administrative Officer on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, and a formal order under sub-rule (7) shall be issued. In dismissing the O.A. the Tribunal rightly concluded that power was available clearly under Rule 48(5) to visit a V.A.O. with the punishment including of dismissal on the basis of conviction in a criminal charge. Here the petitioner’s conviction is operative; only the sentence to the extent of imprisonment is suspended by this Court in a pending appeal. A mere fact that the sentence of imprisonment is suspended would not tantamount to eclipse the conviction. As the conviction is still operative the exercise of power under Rule 48(5) is valid and the order of the Tribunal impugned herein is thus impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 16th July, 2010. GRR