THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13128 of 2010 14-06-2010 BETWEEN; The Government of A.P rep. by its Secretary, Finance and another ...Petitioners vs. K.Nageswara Rao, and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.13128 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing fo the petitioners and Sri V. Venugopal Rao, the learned counsel for the 1s respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.07.2009 in OA No.6501 of 2005. The 1st respondent, a former employee of the State, wh was while in service served as a Junior Assistant in the District Treasur Office, Guntur had filed the O.A. The relevant factual matrix leading to this writ petition is that the 1s respondent was trapped by the ACB while serving as a Junior Assistant i Guntur and prosecuted in C.C.No.1 of 1999. By the judgment dated 30-06 2005 in CC 1 of 1999 the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to on year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The 1st responden preferred a Criminal Appeal 1095 of 2005 before this Court and i Crl.M.P.No.1152 of 2005 therein this court ordered interim suspension o the sentence imposed on the 1st respondent. On the basis of the conviction recorded in C.C.1 of 1999, by the orde dated 15.09.2005 the 1st respondent was dismissed from service Assailing the order of dismissal, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.6501 o 2005. Therein by an order dated 20-10-2005 interim suspension of th order of dismissal was granted and O.A.No.6501 of 2005 was finall disposed of by the order impugned dated 30-07-2009 recording th following:- “ the learned counsel for the Applicant represents that in the light o the interim orders, no further orders need be passed in this O.A Hence the O.A. is closed.” It requires to be noticed that the reasons recorded by the learne Tribunal for granting the interim order of suspension dated 20.10.2005 ar that this Court while considering a writ petition (W.P.No.10515 of 2005 (directed against an order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal declining interim suspension of dismissal order passed in similar circumstances), ha observed that the Tribunal for the sake of consistency ought to hav followed its earlier orders in similar cases, namely granting interim stay o dismissal where an appeal against a conviction is pending before the Hig Court and interim suspension of sentence is granted. On the basis of th observations of this Court in WP No.10515 of 2005, the learned Tribuna granted interim suspension of the order of dismissal on 20-10-2005 i O.A.No.6501 of 2005 and thereafter by the final orders “closed the O.A” o the basis of the interim orders earlier granted. What closure of an O.A signifies in juristic terms and with what lega consequences is not apparent to this court. Either the order of dismissa which is the subject matter of challenge before the learned Tribunal i upheld or invalidated. The interim order had not determined or pronounce on the validity of the impugned order of dismissal and in th circumstances, closure of O.A does not signify any application of mind b the Tribunal as to the validity of the order of dismissal before it. Be that as may. A learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh an others Vs. P.Rajasekhar and others[1] reiterated the principle, following th judgment of the Supreme Court in Dy. Director of Collegiat Education (Admn.,) Vs. S.Nagoor Meera [ (1995) 3 SCC 377 ] an reiterated in Union of India Vs. Ramesh Kumar [ (1997) 7 SCC 514 ] tha where a government servant is dismissed from service on a basis of conduct which led to his conviction in a criminal case, in exercise of th disciplinary power of the State over such public servant under th applicable conduct Rules, the order of dismissal so passed is no automatically invalid or eclipsed merely on account of an order of interim suspension of the sentence, passed by an appellate Court in a Crimina Appeal preferred by the delinquent-government servant against the orde of conviction. This is based on the settled principle that suspension o sentence does not tantamount to eclipse of the conviction, which is th condition precedent for the sentence. In the light of the settled position of law stated and reiterated i P.Rajasekhar (1 supra), the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 30 07-2009 is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. Consequentl O.A.No.6501 of 2005 preferred by the 1st respondent stands dismissed. The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 14th JUNE 2010. TSNR [1]2010 (1) ALD 595 (DB)