1. - The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department on 20th October, 1975. However, due to revengeful action on the part of the opposite party, a criminal case was under Sections 307, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC was registered against him and other family members and he faced trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui. The learned trial judge vide judgment dated 30th September, 2003 convicted the petitioner under Sections 307, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for eight years.

2. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before this Court which has been registered as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1450/2003. Initially, this sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2004 but thereafter to petitioner filed further Misc. Application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 776/2004) and after learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP and also the counsel for he complainant, conviction was stayed by the Court vide order dated 24.11.2005. However, before passing the order of stay of conviction by this Court, the respondents vide order dated 14.1.2004 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CC&A Rules') on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and sole basis for imposing the penalty of termination upon the petitioner was the judgment of conviction which has been stayed. Thus, the very foundation inflicting penalty no more exist and as such the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by this Court in the case of Sunder Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 13261/2008 wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the order of penalty and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner in service.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal is still pending adjudication and merely because conviction has been stayed by the court, will not absolve him from conviction and the order of penalty inflicted in the facts and circumstances does not require any interference. However, the counsel has not disputed the order passed in the case of Sunder Lal Bairwa (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondents were justified while passing the order inflicting penalty upon the petitioner under the CC&A Rules but on account of later development which has taken place and the order of conviction being stayed, the petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits prior to order of stay of conviction. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be justified and the petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits from the date, the order of conviction being stayed by the court and not prior thereto.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the writ petition.

6. As regards the facts are concerned, the same are not in dispute to the effect that in a criminal case, after petitioner is being convicted for offence under Sections 307, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC vide judgment dated 30.9.2003 criminal appeal no. 1450/2003 was preferred and initially his sentence was suspended vide order dated 29.4.2004 and thereafter by Misc. Application filed by the petitioner, conviction was also stayed by the Court vide order dated 24.11.2005. It is not the case where the respondents have initiated departmental enquiry