1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 12.9.2003 Annex.2 passed by respondent No.2 has been challenged.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was appointed as Class IV servant on permanent basis by order dated 8.8.1974, however, subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) by order dated 11.10.1978 and since then the petitioner has been working as LDC with the Rajasthan State electricity Board (for short 'the RSEB' hereinafter). However, by Notification of the State Govt. the RSEB constituted as many as five companies and the petitioner being the employee of the Erstwhile RSEB absorbed by the respondent No.1 company. After having absorbed with the respondent No.1 company, the petitioner was transferred to Sadul Sahar area and during that period while at Sadul Sahar, he suffered a fracture of femur bone and was admitted to Govt. Hospital, Ganganagar from 10.6.1995 to 14.6.95. However, at that time, a first information report came to be lodged by one Parasjeet Singh on 24.9.95 against the petitioner and four others for the offences under Sections 452, 325, 323, 147, 447, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code. After usual investigation, the police filed challan before the competent Court of Judicial Magistrate which tried the case and by judgment and order dated 01.8.2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code but convicted him for the offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 452 Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment of two years, three months, three months and six months for the different offences noticed above and also imposed fine of Rs. 8000/-. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar and the sentence of imprisonment awarded came to be suspended by order of Sessions Judge during pendency of the appeal. By order dated 12.9.2003 Annex.2, the services of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the respondents on the ground that he has been convicted on the criminal charge and the conviction renders his further retention with the respondents undesirable. According to the petitioner, Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (for short 'the Regulations of 1962' hereinafter), have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and these Regulations have been adopted by the new companies by notification of the State Govt. and the respondent No.1 Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur has also accepted the said Regulations. Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1962 deals with penalties and there are two types of penalties i.e. major penalties and minor penalties. The major penalties are reducing to a lower class, grade or post, compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal. Under Regulation 7, the major penalties can be imposed after holding an enquiry as prescribed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, major penalty can be imposed only after holding an inquiry and in the instant case, no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and without there being any inquiry, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circular dated 3.9.75 issued by the Erstwhile RSEB has been superseded by Circular dated 26.10.81 Annex.3 which provides that as soon as the employees of the Board is convicted on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority should consider the facts of the case and the quantum of punishment awarded and decide whether any penalty is to be imposed under Regulations of 1962. In case his continuance on Board duty is prima-facie undesirable on account of his conviction, he may be placed under suspension. Howeve