-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2002 Ram Lakhan Saroj, aged 48 years, Indian Inhabitant ) worked as Asstt. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, ) residing at Officer’s Railway Protection Force Barrack ) Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 013. )..Petitioner versus 1. Union of India through its General Manager, ) Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 ) 2. The Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, ) Railway Protection Force, Mumbai Central, ) Mumbai-400 008 ) 3. The Inspector of General-cum-Chief Security ) Commissioner, Western Railway, Churchgate, ) Mumbai-400 020 ).Respondents CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: JUNE 11 , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.): By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal passed by the authority dated 31st March, 2001, on the ground that he has been convicted in a criminal case. At the relevant time, the -2- petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force. He was subjected to criminal proceedings on the ground that he had demanded Rs. 1,000/- and subsequently accepting Rs. 800/- from the complainant. The petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Mumbai Central under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was convicted and was ordered to suffer one year’s rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further one month’s rigorous imprisonment. In view of the conviction, by the impugned order dated 31st March, 2001, he was dismissed from the services. 2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order was dismissed. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since he has been released on bail, the department was not justified in dismissing the petitioner on the basis of conviction. -3- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the record and proceedings. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed in view of the conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case. The authority was justified under the Rules to pass a summary order of dismissal as it is not obligatory to hold an enquiry when action is to be taken in view of the conviction order. The order of conviction has not been stayed and simply because the petitioner has been released on bail, it cannot be said that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court is also suspended. Under the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the grievance of the petitioner in this behalf. It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioner is acquitted by the Appellate Court, the petitioner after such acquittal may apply to the respondents for reinstatement and consequential benefits and shall pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. In the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 29 Administrative Tribunal Cases 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 10 thus: “What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the -4- government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceedings, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice.” 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect, in case the petitioner is acquitted by the appellate court, he may make appropriate representation to the authority at that time and the authority shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.