VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD at admission stage.
(2.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dtd. 13. 6. 2005 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari on 1. 3. 1979. It has also been alleged that one Gurcharan Singh filed a false complaint against the petitioner regarding illegal demand for the purpose giving the copies of Jamabandi of his field and transferring the land in the name of Gurcharan Singh. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that on the basis of complaint made by Gurcharan Singh, the trap was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Department. The petitioner has also averred that after trial, the petitioner was convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment dtd. 21. 4. 2005.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his conviction before this Court and his Court vide order dtd. 9. 5. 2005 suspended the sentence of the petitioner. After conviction of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 13. 6. 2005 (Annex. 5 ). The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the conviction of the petitioner is not final as the sentences awarded to the petitioner have been suspended by the Court in criminal appeal, therefore, the order dtd. 13. 6. 2005 (Annex. 5) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, is perse illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. There is no dispute on the point that the case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner and, after trial, through judgment dtd. 21. 4. 2005, the petitioner was convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and there cannot be any dispute on the point that if a person is convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the conduct of that person would fall within the definition of moral turpitude. There is no dispute on the point that by order dtd. 9. 5. 2005 (Annex. 4), the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court. ;