SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter has since been assigned to this Bench. It appears from the materials on record that the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of dismissal under reference No. ECL/gm/na/p-IV (31) 92/3081/623 dated March 3, 1992, and other consequential reliefs. ( 2 ) IT is stated in detail that the petitioners are employees of Gopinathpur Colliery, a Unit of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioner No. 1 is a Fitter Helper and the Petitioner No. 2 is a Clerk and the petitioner No. 3, a Driller. It is alleged that for the first time on March 5, 1992 the petitioners have come to learn that their services have been terminated by the respondent No. 1, Eastern Coal-fields Limited having its registered office at Sanctoria, P. O. Dishergarh, District Burdwan, and is under the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the same was published in the daily newspaper. It is stated that the dismissal has been made on the basis of the reports and information by the General Manager, Nirsha Area Eastern Coal fields Limited. It is placed on record that a Criminal case has been instituted with the Nirsha Police Station and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the impugned orders of dismissal have been made without following the procedure laid down in the statutory rules and without complying with the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are alleged to have been made summarily without any departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The alleged orders are, according to the petitioners, arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) THE writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in opposition. The respondents have taken the point of jurisdiction of this Court as no cause of action has arisen as alleged in the writ petition. It is, however, disclosed that the petitioners were posted at Gopinathpur Colliery under Nirsha Area of the respondent No. 1 in the district of Dhanbad within the State of Bihar and the records of the case are also lying in Nirsha Area of the respondent No. 1 and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and/or entertain the instant writ petition. It has been submitted that the dismissal of the petitioners from the services is justified in view of the circumstances and the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that had the matter been referred under Section 10 of the said Act to Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, the respondent company would be in a position before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges which have been incorporated in the order of dismissal. It is further submitted that the petitioners are having criminal background and they are treated as criminals and the respondent company was not in a position to hold the enquiry and the orders of dismissal are well justified in view of the facts and circumstances as detailed in the affidavit-in-opposition. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have, however, filed affidavit-in-reply controverting the allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition and also reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the impugned orders have been made taking recourse to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India upon dispensation with the departmental enquiry. ( 6 ) THE attention of the Court has been drawn to a decision reported in 1991 1 CLR 1 (Jaswant Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. ). The Court has found that the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot be rested solely on the ipso dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. In the said case it was found that no particulars were given and the satisfaction of the concerned authority was found to be based on the ground that delinquent was instigating his colleagues and was holding meetings with other police officials with a view to spreading hatred and, dissatisfaction towards his superiors. It was found that the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority as to dispensation of departmental enquiry was not fortified by independent material. The order of dismissal could not be sustained. Another decision was cited, which is reported in (1991-I-LLJ-308) The Chief Security Officer and Ors. It was found that the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority as to dispensation of departmental enquiry was not fortified by independent material. The order of dismissal could not be sustained. Another decision was cited, which is reported in (1991-I-LLJ-308) The Chief Security Officer and Ors. v. Singasan Rabi Das ). In paragraph 5 of the said decision, the facts of the case were considered along with the Rules 44 and 46 of the relevant rules and it was found that there was total absence of sufficient materials or good grounds for dispensing with the enquiry. ( 7 ) IN the present case, Mr. R. N. Majumdar, learned Advocate for the respondents, has very fairly submitted that the respondent authorities made an F. I. R. and the matter is still sub judice. But on the self-same ground if they held an enquiry or initiated a departmental proceeding, the petitioners might have challenged the same for running two parallel proceedings. This is no ground for which the domestic enquiry should be dispensed with. The allegations, however grave may be, are pending for effective adjudication but on the self-same ground the respondents cannot claim to be the Judges of their own case and to take a decision of dismissing the petitioners without any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In view of the materials on record, this Court finds that nothing has been demonstrated before this Court that the satisfaction, however subjective, was genuine and bona fide. If a matter is pending before a competent Court for effective adjudication, the petitioners could have been suspended, if the rules permit, but the steps taken to dismiss them are found to be wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. Besides, it is a well founded principle that life includes livelihood as found in the case of Olga Tellis and it is not brought to the notice of the Court the principal as laid down under Section 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The point of jurisdiction is, however, taken by the respondents authorities and the case as cited from the Bar, is The State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties and Anr. In the said case, the question of jurisdiction has been considered, where a notification was challenged. The point of jurisdiction is, however, taken by the respondents authorities and the case as cited from the Bar, is The State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties and Anr. In the said case, the question of jurisdiction has been considered, where a notification was challenged. The cause of action is a bundle of facts and it was found that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 and the office of the respondent No. 1 are well within the jurisdiction of this Court and the impugned orders are made therefrom and certainly it cannot be said that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court in order to avoid entertainment of the writ petition and to consider the same according to law. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the question of alternative efficacious remedy, this Court is of the view that when the respondents have preferred to pass the impugned order of dismissal by dispensing with the enquiry, the question of adducing evidence to support the order before the Tribunal does not arise. The respondents have every liberty and right to produce sufficient materials before this Court to justify the passing of the impugned order of dismissal without any enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing. Since this Court finds that there is no sufficient ground and nothing has been demonstrated to justify the legality and validity of the impugned order, there is no bar and/or impediment for the petitioners to obtain the reliefs as prayed for. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of summary dismissal are quashed and set aside. Appropriate Writs do issue accordingly. There will be order as to costs. ( 10 ) IT is, however, made clear that this judgment will not prevent the respondents from holding an appropriate enquiry after giving a valid charge-sheet to the petitioners and by taking any appropriate decision after giving all opportunities of hearing and by fulfilling the principles of natural justice. ( 11 ) THE prayer for stay of operation of this order is made and refused. ( 11 ) THE prayer for stay of operation of this order is made and refused. Let xerox copies of this judgment be made available to the learned Advocates on record for the respective parties on their usual undertakings and upon compliance with necessary formalities. .