JUDGMENT :

1. Instant writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure.4) passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services.

2. The facts lying in a small compass have caused grave repercussion on petitioner’s career-

2.1. The petitioner, who was working as a Principal in Education Department issued a cheque amounting Rs. 90,000/- which went dishonoured.

2.2. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) was filed and after the trial, by order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the trial Court (in Criminal Case No.27/2008), the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year apart from a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. An appeal preferred there against came to be rejected by the appellate Court per-viam order dated 22.04.2017.

2.3. The petitioner preferred a revision petition being S.B. Criminal Revision No.1071/2017 against aforenoted orders, along with an application for suspension of sentence (S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Revision) No.271/2017) which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the sentence awarded was suspended by order dated 21.08.2017.

2.4 By the time, the petitioner’s sentence could be suspended, he had to remain behind the bars for nine days (14.08.2017 to 23.08.2017), for which, by way of order dated 08.09.2017, the respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension in exercise of purported powers under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’).

2.5 An order dated 24.08.2018 in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 came to be passed by respondent No.2 and the petitioner, who was working as Principal was scooped out of the services.

2.6 Later on, a compromise came to be entered into by the petitioner with the complainant and on the basis of such compromise, the petitioner’s conviction stood set aside by an order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 21.07.2022, passed in S.B. Criminal Revision No.1071/2017.

3. Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as a consequence of setting aside of the petitioner’s conviction, the sole ground on which the petitioner had been dismissed from services itself has lost its legs and, therefore, impugned order of dismissal from services cannot continue.

4. Learned counsel vehemently argued that as a matter of fact, the respondents could not have dismissed the petitioner from services on the basis of his conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the dispute was otherwise a dispute of civil nature.

5. It was argued that merely because a punishment has been prescribed for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the petitioner has been convicted, it cannot be said that his action or conduct has amounted to moral turpitude.

6. Mr. Srawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent firstly pointed that the dismissal order was passed on 24.08.2018, whereas the conviction came to be set aside on 21.07.2022. He argued that it was petitioner’s sentence alone, which was suspended, while the conviction continued, hence, the State was fully justified in passing the order of dismissal from service while invoking Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958.

7. Secondly, he argued that the petitioner’s conviction was set aside on the basis of compromise and his acquittal was not honourable acquittal, hence, the petitioner cannot get any relief on the basis of the order dated 21.07.2022.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.

9. True it is, that the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 but this Court is of the firm view that a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act neither constitutes a gross misconduct nor does it amount to moral turpi