THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 19421 of 2000 Oral order: The petitioner was working as Development Officer in A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation. While working as such, he was trapped by the ACB and a criminal case was registered against him. He was convicted in C.C. No. 5 of 1997 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, on 20.03.2000. Questioning his conviction, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2000. Pursuant to his conviction and during the pendency of the appeal, he was dismissed from service vide orders dated 03.05.2000 passed by respondent No.4. Questioning the dismissal order, he filed appeal before respondent No.3 and prayed for grant of subsistence allowance as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan[1]. As no orders were passed on his appeal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the judgment of the apex Court referred to above and as per the orders issued by the Government through its Finance and Planning Department in Memo No. 39071/471/A2/FR.II/99, dated 28.02.2000, the petitioner, who was placed under suspension, consequent upon his being lodged in jail and later released on bail, is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance pending disposal of criminal appeal, but the action of respondent No.3 in not paying the same and on the other hand, rejecting his appeal filed questioning the order of dismissal, is illegal and arbitrary. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed detailed counter, justifying the action of the respondents in not paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner because consequent upon his conviction in the criminal case, he was not placed under suspension, but was dismissed from service. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and admitted to by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.3 by order dated 23.09.2000, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal, passed by respondent No.4. Though the petitioner relying on the judgment of the apex Court and the orders issued by the Government in the memo 28.02.2000 referred to above contends that he is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the fact remains, the petitioner upon his conviction in the criminal case, was not placed under suspension, but was dismissed from service. The judgment of the apex Court and the government memo, relied upon by the petitioner, provides for payment of subsistence allowance, where a government employee is placed under suspension, consequent upon his being lodged in jail upon his conviction in a criminal case and later released on bail. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service, has been dismissed by respondent No.3. In fact, the apex Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education v. Nagoor Meera[2] observed that what is really relevant is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, and considering the fact that in the said case, the respondent was found guilty of corruption by a criminal court, held that until the conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain such employee in service, and that if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice. Be that as it may, since in the instance case, as noted above, the petitioner was not placed under suspension pending disposal of the criminal appeal, but was dismissed from service, and there being no relationship of employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any subsistence allowance. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 2ND December, 2010 KSR [1] 1983 (2) SLR 493 [2] AIR 1995 SC 1364