( 1 ) THIS judgment disposes of two Special Appeals -- Special Appeals Nos. 163 and 164 of 1960. In both these appeals the appellant is the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, allahabad Division. The respondent in Special Appeal No. 163 of 1960 is Ram Nath Gautam, and the respondent in Special Appeal No. 164 of 1960 is Ram Saran Das. These appeals were connected as they raised a common question of law. The respondents in both these appeals were tried on a criminal charge. They were convicted by the trial court. After their conviction by the trial court, the Government passed an order of dismissal as provided in Article 311 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. These orders of dismissal were passed on the ground that they had been convicted by the trial court. In appeal, however, the conviction of the respondents was set aside, and they were acquitted. In view of their acquittal, the respondents applied to be reinstated. Their applications for reinstatement were dismissed by the appellant. Thereafter each of the dismissed servants, who are respondents in these appeals, filed a writ petition in this Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order refusing to reinstate them. These petitions came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court, who took the view that the conviction of the petitioners having been set aside by the appellate court, and they having been ultimately acquitted of the charge, proviso (1) to Article 311, Sub-article (2), did not apply to their cases. He, therefore, allowed both the writ petitions and granted the relief sought for in the writ petitions.

( 2 ) DISSATISFIED with the said judgments, the opposite party in both the writ petitions viz. the divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, has filed these two appeals.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of opinion that there is no force in these appeals. Article 311 of the Constitution of India provides two important guarantees to civil servants holding posts in the Union or a State. The first guarantee is incorporated in Article 311, clause (1 ). According to it, no civil servant in the Union or a State can be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The second guarantee is contained in Article 311, Clause (2) which lays down that no such person shall be dismissed, or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. In the present case, we are concerned with the second guarantee given to servants holding civil posts in the Union or a State. The intention of the Constitution makers appears to have been to assure the civil servants that they would not be made victims of any arbitrary action on the part of authorities entrusted with the task of dealing with matters vitally affecting their service or tenure of office, and that no steps seriously imperilling their security or prejudicing their tenure of office shall be taken against them without giving them a reasonable opportunity of meeting the charges levelled against them. There might, however, be certain exceptional cases in which it might not be necessary to afford any such opportunity. These exceptions are specified in the proviso attached to Clause (2) of article 311. In the present case we are concerned with the first exception, which is defined in sub-clause (a) to this proviso, and according to which Clause (2) would not apply "where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. " the sole question that has arisen before us relates to the interpretation of the expression "led to his conviction on a criminal charge" used in the above sub-clause. In our opinion, there can be no manner of doubt that the words "led to his conviction on a criminal charge" can only mean a criminal charge