M.L. Singhal, J.

1. Hardeep Singh was working as ASI bearing No, 560/HPR in Police Station, Sri Har-gobindpur in the year, 1983 under the administrative control of SSP, Gurdaspur. He was tried on a criminal charge under Section 5(1 Xd) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by Special Judge (Exercising the powers under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Gurdaspur. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. He filed appeal against his conviction and sentence to this Court, which was dismissed. He went to the Honble Supreme Court where also he met the same fate.

2. Vide order bearing No. 3429-95 dated 15.5.1983 of SSP Gurdaspur he was dismissed from service during the pendency of his appeal By means of suit for declaration he challenged his dismissal from service ordered by the SSP, Gurdaspur, on the grounds inter alia that the punishing authority has not taken into consideration the alleged misconduct imputed to him and passed the order of dismissal from service merely on the ground of his conviction. He was deprived of the benefits of the service which he had rendered in the past. While passing the order of dismissal, he did not keep in his mind that this order shall bar him from future employment. He was not given any hearing or show cause before the said order was passed.

3. Defendant-State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he was dismissed from service under Rule 16, 2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, while passing the order of dismissal from service, misconduct attributed to him was taken into account and also the fact whether he could be given benefit of past service.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the order dated 15.5.1984 for dismissal of the plaintiff from his service is illegal, null and void, mala ide and not binding on the plaintiff OPP

2. Whether valid notice u/s 80 CPC has not been served by the plaintiff on the defendants OPD

3. Relief.

Vide order dated 5.12.1998, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Gurdaspur decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration that his dismissal from service is illegal, null and void, mala fide, ultra-vires, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice, having no affect on his service career with all consequential bene- fits and that he shall be deemed to be in continuous service as if the said order had never been passed at all, in view of his finding that at the time when the order of dismissal was passed, the order of sentence against him was lying suspended in the wake of appeal preferred by him before this Court. It was found that so long as the appeal against conviction was pending, this misconduct could not lead to his dismissal.

5. State of Punjab went in appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge,-Gurdaspur vide his order dated 8.2.1991.

6. Still not satisfied, State of Punjab has come up in further appeal to this Court.

7. I have heard the learned DAG Punjab for the appellant-State of Punjab, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.

It is not disputed that respondent-plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to under go RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- by Special Judge, (Exercising the powers under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947) under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 23.2.1983. It is not in dispute that he went in appeal to this Court but without any success. It is also not in dispute that he went in appeal to the Honble Supreme Court but again without any success.

8. While passing order dated 5.5.1983, SSP Gurdaspur took into account the factum of his conviction and sentence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 23.2.1983 and dismissed him from service. SSP, Gurdaspur has specifically recorded as under:

"I have considered the mis-conduct of the ASI Hardip Singh No. 560/HPR, which has led to his conviction by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur and the provisions of PPR 16.2 as amended up to date ana the misconduct of the N.G.O. calls for the penalty of dismissal. ASI Hardip Singh No. 560/HPR is, accordingly, dismissed from the force with immediate effect."

9. While dismissing him from service, SSP, Gurdaspur took into account the misconduct which led to his conviction. He did not dismiss him from service merely because of the misconduct which led to his conviction. How could he be retained in service when he was found to have accepted a sum of Rs. 250/- as illegal gratification during the discharge of his official duty viz., he was investigating a case under Section 409/454 1PC against Shangara Singh, Field Assistant who had applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, 24.7.1982 was the date fixed in that bail application. He (ASI Hardip Singh) came to the Sessions Court alongwith the case filed. Shangara Singh met him at about 5.30 a.m. and ASI Hardip Singh demanded Rs. 250A by way of bribe in order to help him in securing anticipatory bail and also in the investigation of the case. A raid was laid on ASI Hardip Singh. He was found in possession of the tainted currency notes by DSP (V) Harbhajan Singh. He was convicted and sentenced for this misconduct by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur. He remained convicted and sentenced by this Court and as also by the Honble Supreme Court. On appeal only the sentence was suspended. Assuming that on appeal conviction was also suspended, on the dismissal of the appeal by this Court as well as further by the Honble Supreme Court it became quite clear that his conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur on 23.2.1983 was quite in order and as such his dismissal from service recorded on 15.3.1983 was quite in order.

10. How could he be kept in service when conviction and sentence on a corruption charge was starting in the face. In the case of such heinous conduct, which involved grave moral turpitude shocking the very conscience of the society, how could he be allowed to defile the public faisth and trust by retaining him in service further. Probity in public life is badly needed on which the edifice of society rests.

11. For the reasons given above, this appeal merits acceptance and the same is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.

12. Appeal allowed.