CWP No.14595 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14595 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.8.2008 Om Paul -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. RK Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 4.8.2008, Annexure P.11, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Article 311 of the Constitution read with Section 31- A(3) (b) of the Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1955 read with Rule 13(i) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970 on the basis of his conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Special Judge, Ropar vide judgment dated 11.1.2000, Annexure P.3. 1 CWP No.14595 of 2008 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been continuing in service inspite of order of conviction and he was also given next higher scale. He was also given appreciation letter. The earlier order of continuing the petitioner in service could not be reviewed. 3. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. The petitioner having been convicted for having accepted bribe, mere pendency of appeal did not wipe out the finding of corruption. The petitioner could not have been continued in service. The order of dismissal is, thus, fully justified. 4. The issue raised in the petition was also considered earlier in a judgment of this Court in Surinder Kumar Gupta and another v. state of Punjab and others, CWP No.17246 of 2007, decided on 16.11.2007, wherein it was observed:- “It is well-settled that mere pendency of appeal or revision against conviction of a public servant cannot be a ground to continue a public servant in service. Such a course will erode the confidence of people in public institutions. Suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh AIR 2001 SC 3320, Para 11, B.R.Kapur v. State of Tamilnadu AIR 2001 SC 3435, Paras 34, 40 and 58 and Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and others AIR 1985 SC 1416, Para 70. The misconduct for which the petitioner has been convicted, is serious and imposition of 2 CWP No.14595 of 2008 punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Akhtari Bi (supra) is on a bail matter and does not deal with the issue involved herein and is, thus, distinguishable. As regards question of permissibility of review, we do not consider it necessary to go into that question having regard to the fact that the petitioners having been convicted for corruption, interference with the impugned order will be against public interest. It is well settled that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be invoked even against an illegal order if interference would be against public interest. Reference may be made to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2003 SC 2889. In view of above, the petition is dismissed.” 5. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this petition. 6. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 20, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3