1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3240/03 Pramod Kumar Jha vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 12/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sunil Samdaria for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of his dismissal dated 6.8.2002 which was passed on the conduct which led to his conviction by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jaipur dated 12.5.1988 for offences under Section 161 C.P.C. read with Section 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year on each count with fine of Rs.200 each for the aforesaid offences. Initially, when the order of his conviction was suspended, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. The Divisional Commissioner, however dismissed the appeal on the ground that mere suspension of sentence does not tantamount to obliterating effect of conviction and 2 therefore conviction would remain operative. Subsequently, the S.B. Cr. Appeal No.201/1988 has been allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 19.9.2008 with the Court recording a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, defence of the petitioner was held to have been proved by preponderance of probability. The petitioner was therefore honorably acquitted. Learned Additional Government Counsel is not in a position to dispute this fact. He however submits that petitioner was suspended on 30.11.1988 but eventually his suspension was revoked on 19.12.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that even after conviction of the petitioner vide judgement of the trial court dated 12.5.1988, he was allowed to continue in service till 4.4.2002 and in this manner he served for almost 14 years from the date of his conviction. In the facts of the case, it is evident that the conviction of the petitioner was 3 the only foundation of his dismissal order and since the petitioner has now been acquitted, the order of dismissal, therefore, cannot be sustained. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order of dismissal dated 6.8.2002 is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/