As per case facts, the Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was dismissed from service under Rule 10(ix) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, by an order ... passed the day after an FIR was registered against him for serious offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The Petitioner challenged this dismissal in a writ petition, arguing a violation of natural justice, claiming false implication due to political rivalry, and asserting that a confirmed government servant could not be dismissed without a departmental enquiry, especially when only an FIR was registered, not a conviction. The Respondent State supported the action, emphasizing the serious nature of allegations against a teacher involving minor students and citing Rule 19 of the CCA Rules which allows waiver of enquiry for serious criminal acts, further informing the court of the Petitioner's subsequent conviction during the pendency of the petition. The question arose whether the dismissal order, initially invalid due to the absence of a departmental enquiry and based solely on an FIR, should be set aside given the Petitioner's subsequent conviction for serious offenses under the POCSO Act. Finally, the Court acknowledged that the initial dismissal order, being based solely on an FIR and not a conviction, violated Rule 14 and Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, which require an enquiry for major punishments or conviction for dismissal without enquiry. However, exercising its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and considering the Petitioner's subsequent conviction for a serious offense under the POCSO Act and the high moral standards expected from a teacher, the Court found no good ground to interfere with the punishment order. The Court upheld the dismissal but granted the Petitioner liberty to seek cancellation of the punishment order if he is acquitted in the pending criminal appeal.