Though both the writ petitioners were employed under the respondent BCCL at Lodna Colliery, but during the pendency of their services, both of them were remanded to judicial custody in connection with a police case registered against them for alleged offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them were tried and were convicted for the aforesaid offences by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.5.2003 and sentenced to under imprisonment for life.

The petitioners challenged the judgment of their conviction and sentence before the High Court by filing a Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2003. Upon the admission of the appeal, and pending final disposal, both of them were granted bail by the High Court.

Upon their release from jail, the petitioners reported at their respective places of work for joining duty. They were not allowed to join and on the other hand, they were served with a charge sheet dated 10.7.2003 and 12.9.2003 respectively on the charge that they had unauthorizedly absented themselves from their respective duties on and from 29.03.2003.

The petitioners filed their show-cause replies but the same was not found satisfactory and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them. The petitioners participated in the departmental proceeding.

During the pendency of the proceeding, both the petitioners preferred an application before the High Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal for suspension of their conviction. The prayer for suspension of their conviction was rejected, though with the following observations.

“There is nothing on record to suggest that a person cannot rejoin the duty if convicted in a criminal case. There is nothing on the record to show that M/s BCCL has framed any Rule similar to proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India”.

2. At the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, each of the petitioners was served with the impugned letter of his dismissal from service (Annexures-5 and 5A). The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of their dismissal from service and have prayed for quashing the same and also for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to resume their duties at their original post and to pay them their full back wages.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL.

5. Assailing the impugned orders of dismissal, Shri Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, would argue that the impugned orders of dismissal suffers from miscarriage of justice in as much as, even without adopting the procedure laid down by law, the petitioners have been terminated from service. Learned counsel explains that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners was conducted on the basis of a single charge namely, that they had unauthorizedly absented themselves from duty for the period indicated in the charge sheet. Yet, without appreciating the explanation offered by the petitioners for the reasons of their absence from duty, and without considering as to whether such absence could be adjusted against permissible leave to which the petitioners were eligible, the respondents have proceeded to terminate the petitioners’ service on an additional charge that both of them were convicted for criminal offences. Learned counsel argues further that such additional charge was never framed, nor was any inquiry conducted in respect of the same against the petitioners and furthermore, before proceeding to impose the extreme punishment on the basis of such extraneous considerations, the respondents have neither supplied any copy of the inquiry report, nor had served any show-cause notice to the petitioners to enable them to explain as to why they should not be warded the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.

Learned counsel adds further that, as observed in the order of this court in the criminal appeal, the r