IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2899 of 2004 1. SURENDRA RAM, SON OF LATE BALKHANDI RAM. 2. DHANLAL RAM, SON OF LATE MALIKA RAM.BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARAULI, POLICE STATION-PIRO, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. ……….PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 4.DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARA. ……….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3/ 08.11.2010 In this writ application the two petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.3.2003 whereby and whereunder they have been dismissed from service. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the order of dismissal of the petitioners from service cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the same is based on their conviction in a criminal case against which their criminal appeals are still pending before this Court. In support of this submission he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Nandan Prasad vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1995(1) PLJR 399. 2 Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that first of all it would not be correct to say that the order of punishment of the petitioners is based merely on the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court, inasmuch as a departmental proceeding was also initiated against them and the charges framed against them in such departmental proceeding were also found to be proved. He would, therefore, submit that the petitioners would not be entitled for reinstatement in their service even if the conviction in the criminal court is set aside. In the considered opinion of this Court not only the two petitioners have been convicted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but they have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. The petitioners were also subjected to departmental proceeding and the charges against them in the departmental proceeding were found to have been proved. In fact in the second show cause notice also it was clearly mentioned that the charges against the petitioners were proved. The order of 3 punishment also clearly records that: “To be quoted from page 32 ‘A’ In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner is only based on their conviction and sentence in a criminal case under section 302 I.P.C. It is well settled that the two proceedings, namely, the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceedings can always go side by side as was held in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anor., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. As a matter of fact the order of punishment of the petitioners is based both in the background of the criminal case as also on account of charges having been proved in the departmental proceeding and as such, they would not be entitled for reinstatement in service. This application is, accordingly, dismissed and the petitioners will have the liberty to approach the competent disciplinary authority, namely, the District Education Establishment Committee, Bhojpur in 4 case they are acquitted honorably (clean acquittal) by this Court in their pending Cr. Appeal No. 527 of 2001 (D.B.) and 570 of 2001 (D.B.). Subject to the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application stands dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)