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

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for quashing of the order dated 5.6.2015, passed by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Punchayat, U.P. Lucknow, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Senior Auditor, in the office of District Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayat, Maharajganj and to release his entire arrears of salary and pay his regular salary month to month.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Auditor by the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 25.5.1991, he was promoted as Senior Auditor on 6.5.2003 and is working as such in the office of District Audit Officer, Maharajganj since 4.12.2007. A Sessions Trial No. 881 of 1982, pending since the year 1982 was decided by the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2015 by the Session Judge, Maharajganj, wherein there were 23 accused, including petitioner, who were convicted and the petitioner was taken into custody on 8.5.2015 and was released on Bail on 25.4.2016 by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2015. As a consequence of his conviction on 8.5.2015, the respondent No. 2 has dismissed the petitioner from service by the order dated 5.6.2015 against which the petitioner represented to the respondent No. 2 on 16.5.2016, after being released on bail, followed by further representations, but in vain. Hence he has filed this writ petition against the order dated 5.6.2016 passed by respondent No. 2.

4. The respondents have filed their Counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. and therefore, as per the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,1999, his services have been terminated by the order dated 5.6.2015. It has been further stated that since the petitioner was in jail for more than 48 years, therefore, as per the Service Rules, his services were terminated w.e.f. 8.5.2015. He did not submit any stay order against the order dated 8.5.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, which has not been set aside till date by any Court of Law and therefore his termination order is justified. There is no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and action against him is liable to be taken under Article 311 (2-A) of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and may be dismissed.

5. The Counsels for the parties have been heard.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities were required to consider the conduct of the petitioner which had led to his conviction on the criminal charge before imposing maximum punishment of dismissal from service. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to advert to the Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which is as follows,

“Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of State

(1). No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2). No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank concept after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed.

Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

(a). where a pe