( 1. ) IN this appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the defensibility and justifiability of the order dated 3-12-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 16086/07 (S) = 2008 (1) M. P. H. T. 418, is called in question.

( 2. ) THE facts which are essential to be enumerated for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as, the appellant), a Head Constable of Police, was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of rs. 500/ -. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 528/07 wherein this Court by order dated 25-4-2007 had directed suspension of sentence and grant of bail. ( 3. ) DURING the pendency of the appeal the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 3-2-2007 taking note of the factum of conviction in respect of the aforesaid offences passed an order of removal from service. On being moved in an appeal the Appellate Authority by order dated 29-10-2007 affirmed the order of removal.

( 4. ) BEING dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the appellant preferred a writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the aforesaid orders. The learned Single Judge by the order-impugned referred to the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the 1966 Rules) and the M. P. Police Regulations (for short the Regulations) and eventually expressed the opinion that the authorities were justified in law in removing the appellant from service without waiting for the decision in the criminal appeal.

( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/state.

( 6. ) MR. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously applied the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the 1966 Rules though the same is not applicable to the case of the appellant being a Head Constable who is governed by the M. P. Police regulations. It is canvassed by him that the Regulation 238 clearly postulates that till the conviction is affirmed in appeal the appellant is entitled to continue in service. Learned Counsel further canvassed that once there is suspension of sentence in appeal the appellant should not have been visited with the order of removal.

( 7. ) MR. Deepak Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents state resisting the aforesaid submissions contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely infallible inasmuch as an employee in the police force having been convicted cannot be allowed to retained in service. It is urged by him that the gravity of the offence has been rightly taken note of by the competent Authorities and, therefore, giving the stamp of approval to the same by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with.

( 8. ) BE it stated, at the very outset there is no dispute with regard to the post held by the appellant, the recording of conviction by the Criminal Court, pendency of appeal, grant of bail and order of removal passed by the authorities. The seminal question that emanates for consideration is whether such orders could have been passed while criminal appeal/is pending. In this context, we may refer with profit to the 1966 Rules. Rule 14 deals with the procedure for imposing measure penalties. Rule 15 deals with action on the enquiry report. Rule 16 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 17 provides for communication of orders. Rule 18 deals with joint departmental enquiry. Rule 19 deals with special procedure in certain cases. The said