JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner while posted as Technical Junior Engineer under Sonbarsha Division, Saharsa in the office of Engineer-in- Chief of the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, has been terminated from service after considering his reply to show cause. The power has been exercised under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005.

2. Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 reads as follows:-

“20. Special procedure in certain cases.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 17 to 19-

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by him in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, or

(iii) where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that the Government Servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i):

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule.

3. Heard Mr. Kanth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 673 as affirmed by Division in the order and judgment dated 13.9.2012 passed in LPA No. 441 of 2012 reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 887, he submits that the order dated 2.6.2014 in purported exercise of powers under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was working as a daily wager under the National Rural Employment Project in between the period 1982 to 1983. The conviction of the petitioner under judgment dated 30.3.2013 passed by Court of Special Judge, Vigilance II, Patna in Special Case No. 25 of 1992 is in relation to charges pertaining to allegation/occurrence in between 1982 to 1983, during which period the petitioner was a daily wager.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2(k) and 2(o) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 read with Rule 3(b) of the same, the provisions of Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 would not be applicable in instant case. It is his submission that since the alleged offence leading to his conviction in Special Case No. 25 of 1992 is for an occurrence during period when he was a daily wager, the respondent authorities cannot resort to the procedure contained in Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. In order to appreciate this submission this Court would reproduce the relevant provisions relied upon by learned Senior Counsel:-

Rule 2(k) reads:

“2. Definition. -For the purposes of these Rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(k) 'Government servant' means a person who

(i) is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the State and it includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily entrusted to the Government, or a local or other authority;

(ii) is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the Government and whose services are temporarily entrusted to the Union Government or any other State Government;”

Rule 2(o) reads:-

“(o) 'Service' means a civil service of the State;”

Rule 3(b) reads:-

“3. Application of these Rules. -(1) These Rules shall apply to every Government Servant but shall not apply to-

(b) any person in casual employment,”

5. By referring to these Rules learned Senior Counsel has submitted that . Rule 20(i) clearly specified the scope of the provision. The authorities are therefore precluded from exercising jurisd