IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 12669 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th February, 2010. Darshan Singh Petitioner through Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner was working as a Beldar in Public Works Department [B&R] since the year 1973. He was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 178 dated 23.9.2000, under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC as also a cross-case registered vide FIR No. 155 dated 19.8.2000, under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC arising out of the same occurrence. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 2.11.2000. He was later on convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga vide judgment dated 22.3.2000 under Section 323/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. The petitioner went in appeal which has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment dated 1.3.2008 [Annexure P-2] granting benefit of doubt to the petitioner presumably on the basis of some compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant[s]. Meanwhile, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD [B&R], Moga vide order dated 15.11.2007 [Annexure P-1] solely on the basis of his conviction under Section 323/34 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. It needs to be mentioned here that there was no reference and/or discussion with regard to the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga in a criminal case. After having been acquitted by the Appellate Court, namely, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, the petitioner has now impugned his dismissal from service. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. It is well settled that mere conviction on a criminal charge can not be the basis of dismissal of a civil servant from service under proviso to Article 311[2] of the Constitution of India unless his conduct which led to his conviction warrants such an action. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper about the conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate on a criminal charge. Besides that, the said conviction no longer exists after the petitioner has been acquitted by the appellate Court, though may be on account of benefit of doubt. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2007 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD [B&R], Moga, is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be re-instated in the government service with all consequential service benefits. This, however, would not preclude the Disciplinary Authority from initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, if so permissible, under the Rules. Disposed of. Dasti. February 15, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE