( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, a former Police Sub-Inspector, challenges the Order dated 4th March, 1999 made by the Director General and Inspector General of Police whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The said order has been confirmed in revision by the State Government on 29th November, 1999.

( 3 ) IN the year 1993 an offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 161 IPC was registered against the petitioner in the Nadiad ACB Police Station. The petitioner was tried in Special Case No. 7 of 1994. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad by his judgment and order dated 5th May, 1998 convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Sec. 161 IPC and sentenced him to suffer 1 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/=. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/=. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 1998 which is pending before this Court. Upon appeal, the petitioner has been released on bail. Pursuant to his conviction, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the impugned Order dated 13th October, 1998 which is confirmed in revision on 29th November, 1999; as aforesaid.

( 4 ) MR. Supehia has submitted that since the petitioner has preferred appeal against the conviction and the petitioner has been released on bail, the petitioner cannot be dismissed from service. Pending appeal, he ought to be continued under suspension and be paid regular subsistence allowance. He has submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order is vitiated since the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the disciplinary authority nor has the Public Service Commission been consulted before imposing the penalty of dismissal. In support of his contentions, Mr. Supehia has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [air (1983) SC 803] and of this Court in the matter of M. R Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, [1999 (1) GLH (UJ) 8].

( 5 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through the learned Addl. Government Pleader Mr. Hasurkar. Mr. Hasurkar has supported the impugned order and has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of P. D Waghela and Ors. v. G. C Raiger, Deputy I. G. P and Ors. , [1994 (1) GLR 240] and of Rambadan R. Shukla and Anr. v. District Superintendent of Police and Anr. , [1997 (1) GLR 352]. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. V. K Bhaskar, [1997 (11) SCC 383].

( 6 ) THE question whether a Government servant who has been convicted of an offence can be dismissed from service pending appeal against conviction was the issue referred to the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of P. D Waghela and Ors. [supra]. The Court, considering the various provisions of law and rulings of the Honble Supreme Court, held that, `the conviction spoken to in clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311, to form a basis for the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, could be one recorded by a competent Criminal Court in the first instance and the preferring of an appeal or revision against such conviction and the pendency of the same will not alter the position and action taken on the basis of such conviction, need not conform to clause (2) of Article 311, since by the express terms of the second proviso thereto, clause (2) of Article 311 is dispensed with. The same is the view expressed by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of V. K Bhaskar [supra]. In light of this consistent view taken by the Full Bench of this Court and the Honble Supreme Court, the contention raised by Mr. Supehia requires to be