Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order dated 25.7.1996, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

3. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though it is true that the petitioner was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 542 of 1983, under Section 109 I.P.C. for Abetment of Murder by Sessions Judge, Lucknow, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 1985, wherein, he was enlarged on bail, but the disciplinary authority has passed the order dated 25.7.1996, dismissing the petitioner from service, without considering at all the conduct of the petitioner, which led to his conviction and whether petitioner was liable for punishment of dismissal or any other punishment. He vehemently contended that a bare perusal of impugned order itself shows that disciplinary authority has proceeded on the assumption that as soon as a Government servant is convicted, dismissal from service i