Lisa Gill, J.

1. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside decision dated 08.12.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by present appellant / writ petitioner seeking setting aside of G.O.Ms.No.59, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.I) Department, dated 02.04.2024, and consequently setting aside termination of service of appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Appellant / writ petitioner filed the above said writ petition being aggrieved of termination of his services on account of his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short,“PC Act”). Appellant / writ petitioner was serving as Town Planning Building Overseer (TBO) in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. He was proceeded against on allegations of acquiring huge assets in his name and in the name of his dependents / family members. Learned Special Judge convicted appellant for the offences as mentioned in the foregoing paras and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. Appellant/writ petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.964 of 2023 before the High Court. Sentence imposed upon the Appellant / writ petitioner was suspended vide order, dated 21.12.2023 passed therein. The 1strespondent, exercising powers conferred under clause (x) of Rule 9 read with clause (i) of Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 02.04.2024, dismissing appellant from government service with immediate effect. Appellant filed W.P.No.33806 of 2025 challenging the said action. Learned Single Bench on considering the facts and circumstances dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that sentence imposed upon appellant has been suspended. Moreover, the nature of offence is not such which calls for termination of services of the appellant as has been done by the authorities. Appeal filed by appellant challenging his conviction vide judgment, dated 08.12.2023, by learned Special Judge is pending adjudication and appellant has a very good case in his favor and is likely to succeed in the appeal. In case, termination of his service is not set aside, grave prejudice shall be caused to appellant. It is further submitted that action of terminating services of appellant was taken without issuance of even a notice to him. It is thus prayed that this appeal be allowed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance.

5. It is a matter of record that appellant has been convicted for offenses punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, by learned Special Judge vide decision, dated 08.12.2023. Doubtlessly, sentence imposed upon him has been suspended by this Court by order, dated 21.12.2023, however, it is undeniable that conviction of appellant has not been stayed, therefore, argument raised by learned counsel for appellant that upon suspension of sentence imposed upon him, appellant is entitled to reinstatement in service, is an argument devoid of any merit, hence rejected. Learned Single Bench has correctly considered this argument and rightly relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Deputy Director of Collegiate v. S. Nagoor Meera(1995 (3) SCC 377), Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Jagjeevan Rao(2014 (13) SCC 239), and LIC v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah(2020 (12) SCC 144). Plea raised by learned counsel for appellant that no notice whatsoever has been given to appellant before taking the action in question and that an opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to him is again an argument in futility, hence rejected. Learned counsel for appellant had sought to argue that the allegations against appellant are not so grave, so as to invite termination of services. We do not find any merit in this argument, as admittedly appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under the PC Act. Once action has been taken by the employer on the basis of conviction of appellant for offences punishable under the PC Act, with necessity of carrying out separate inquiry/proceedings not being found, arguments as raised on behalf of appellant pale into insignificance. The employer is justified in taking the action in question in the given factual matrix.

6. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order, dated 08.12.2025, which calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. No other argument was raised.

7. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, impugned decision dated, 08.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge is upheld and this appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.