ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.11.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 9795 of 2009 by which judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/respondent has been allowed. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the Writ Appeal are:-

The writ petitioner, Smt. S. Anitha, was working as Officer-in-charge of Malaya Bhavan of the Fisheries Department during the period from 4.6.1997 to 16.2.1998 and was entrusted with dominion over the financial transactions of the Government property of that office. She was arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 66 of 2004 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 9.2.2009 with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/- with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/- with a default clause of imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. The Director of Fisheries issued an order dated 4.3.2009 removing the petitioner from service on the basis of her conviction by invoking the provisions contained in clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed appeal before this Court against the conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2009. Criminal M.A. No. 2521 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner in which the following interim order was passed by this court on 6.3.2009:-

"Execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant shall stand suspended and the conviction is stayed on the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further ordered that out of the total fine amount, Rs. 35,000/- shall be deposited at the time of executing the bond and the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- shall be deposited within one month from the date of release."

2. A counter affidavit in the Writ Petition was filed on behalf of the State pleading that in view of the conviction of the petitioner, the power under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was invoked. Reference of the Government order dated 27.8.1998 has also been made in the counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge heard the Writ Petition and by judgment dated 19.11.2009 allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside Exhibit P3 and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. The State of Kerala, aggrieved by the said judgment, has come up in this Writ Appeal.

3. Sri. P.I. Davis, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has submitted that no error was committed in dismissing the petitioner from service consequent to her conviction. It is submitted that even though the conviction order was stayed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2009, the conviction has not come to an end and the mere fact that conviction has been stayed does not entitle the petitioner to claim reinstatement in service. He further submits that in exercise of power under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no requirement of giving hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in accordance with Rule 18 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, in the event the Criminal Appeal is allowed and subsequently the conviction is set aside in appeal, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all the benefits to which she would have been entitled had she been in service. He further submitted that Rule 18 proviso mandates that consequent to the conviction, the employee is to be dismissed forthwith irrespective of the fact that appeal is pending or that