The main legal point established is that a constable's dismissal based on conviction and sentence is valid, and reinstating a convicted constable would be against public policy and public interest.

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Daya Shankar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. Petitioner was selected and appointed as Constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh in January, 1985. In November, 1996, while he was still posted at G. R. P. , Shahjahanpur, he was suspended from service on the charge of registration of a Criminal Case No. 659 of 1996 under Section 302, i. P. C. , police station Majhaula, district Moradabad. In Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997, State v. Sanjay and Ors. , under Section 302/34, I. P. C. the Additional District Judge-7, Moradabad convicted petitioner Ram Rakshapal Singh having found him guilty for offences punishable under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow, by his order dated 22. 6. 2001 dismissed petitioner under Rule 8 (2) (A) of U. P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, with immediate effect on the ground of his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. In the same order, it was stated that in view of the heinous crime of murder committed by the petitioner for which he had been sentenced for life imprisonment, it was not proper for him to continue on the post of Constable in the civil police, which is a disciplined force.

( 3 ) THE petitioner along with others convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid sessions trial filed a criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001, Sanjai and three Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court by its order dated 9. 11. 2001 suspended the order of conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2, mahendra Pal Singh, and appellant No. 3, Ram Rakshapal Singh. The order passed by this Court is quoted below ;

"heard appellants counsel Sri D. S. Misra and learned A. G. A. It is submitted by the appellants counsel that appellant No. 2, Mahendra Pal Singh is a teacher and appellant No. 3 Ram rakshapal Singh is a police constable in G. R. P. and therefore, a prayer has been made to suspend the order of sentence during pendency of their appeal in this Court. Perused the order dated 31. 8. 2001 and it is directed that the following words be added to that order: pending appeal the order of conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2, Mahendra Pal Singh and appellant No. 3, Ram Rakshapal Singh shall remain suspended,"

( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation before the Superintendent of police, Railways, Lucknow, to reinstate him in service on the ground that his conviction and sentence has been stayed by the High Court. It appears that the respondent refused to consider his reinstatement on which the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 22. 6. 2001 passed by the Superintendent of police, Railways, Lucknow and to reinstate the petitioner and treat his services with effect from 22. 6. 2001 on which the order of termination has been passed.

( 5 ) IT is submitted by Sri D. S. Misra on behalf of the petitioner that petitioners services were terminated only on the ground of his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997. After the stay of his conviction and sentence, the entire basis of the order of dismissal has been taken away and; as such, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (2) JIC 163 and a judgment of this Court in Sada Nand Misra v. State of U. P. , 2000 (1) AWC 180 (LB) : 2000 (1) LBESR 588.

( 6 ) IN Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the expeditious disposal of criminal appeals pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the context of expeditious trials, it was observed in para 5 as follows :

"this Court, has t