Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.M.H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is contended that the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, confirmed in appeal and revision vide orders dated 28.1.2012 and 11.9.2012, has been passed without holding any inquiry and merely relying on conviction of petitioner in Session Trial No. 808 of 2007, though in appeal preferred by petitioner before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 2064 of 2011, the conviction has been stayed, therefore, no punishment ought to have been imposed upon petitioner till appeal is pending before this Court.

3. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Brahma Dev v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2006(3) ALJ 710 and it would be useful to reproduce paragraphs 11 to 16 of the said judgment as under :

“11. Now coming to question No. 1, in my view the power under regulation 39(4) can be exercised even if the order of conviction and sentence passed by the criminal Court is stayed in appeal. A perusal of regulation 39 (4) shows that the factum of conviction on a criminal charge i