H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order Annx.7 dt. 03.07.1992, whereby he was dismissed from service.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that on 05.01.1984, the petitioner, while holding the post of Assistant Sub - Inspector of Police, was found involved in a criminal case for the offences under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ''the P.C. Act '' hereinafter) and Section 161 IPC. He was put to trial in Criminal Case No. 1/1985 before the Special Judge, Anti -Corruption Cases Court, Udaipur (for short, ''the trial Court '' hereinafter). On trial, the trial Court, vide judgment and order dt. 13.11.1987, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act, and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order dt. 13.11.1987 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 475/1987, which came to be allowed vide judgment dt. 26.03.2006 and this Court, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court vide judgment and order dt. 13.11.1987, set the petitioner at liberty. Against the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 26.03.2006 passed by this Court, a Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) 2006 CRLMP No. 15039 was filed by the State of Rajasthan, which came to be dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court vide Order dt. 08.01.2007 and, thus, the order of acquittal of the petitioner passed by this Court has attained finality.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the very basis of dismissal of petitioner 's service vide order Annx.7 dt. 03.07.1992 has come to an end on account of acquittal of the petitioner by this Court vide judgment and order dt. 26.03.2006 and the Special Leave to Appeal against this order has been dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court vide Order dt. 08.01.2007, therefore, the impugned order Annx.7 dt. 03.07.1992 is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2006 CDR 396 (SC), and the decisions of this Court in Purshottam Singh v. The Union of India, RLW 1080 376; Satya Dev Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1994 (1) 496; Nasruddin v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2006 (2) CDR 1350 (Raj.); and Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1998 (1) WLC 445.;