Judgment Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.: 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 10 May, 1990, passed by the learned Trial Judge, dismissing the writ petition in which the order of termination of the petitioner's service, which was terminated in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, under Clause 12.4(1)(c) of the Common Coal Cadre of Coal India Limited Rules, by three month's pay in lieu of notice of termination, dated 3 July, 1989. The said office order, dated 3rd July, 1989, is as follows : " Whereas an accident occurred on 30.6.89 during the first shift at South Govindpur Colliery of Govindpur Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in which• 5 workmen lost their lives. Whereas Shri Babu Lal being Manager of the Colliery at the time of accident and that during inspection by the General Manager (Safety) and other high officials on 30. 6.89 ; as well as on 1st July 1990, it has been observed that Shri Babu Lal had visited the mine only once during June, 1989 in violation of the provisions of Coal Mines Regulations. The work was being done in the area not sanctioned by the DGMS. Moreover, there was no support in these places of work as required under the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations. Thus, the safety of the mine was not taken care of properly and maintained by Shri Babu Lal, who has grossly neglected and derelicted in his duties as a result the above accident took place. Whereas due to the above reason the performance of Shri Babu Lal has been found to be unsatisfactory and inadequate resulting in death of five workmen, which is prejudicial to the interest of the company. It has, therefore, been decided by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CIL, in accordance with the powers Conferred on him under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of CIL, 1978 being the Disciplinary Authority, to terminate the services of Shri Babu Lal from the company with immediate effect as per clause 12.4(1)(c) of the CIL's Office Memorandum No. CIL/C-5A (vi) /50729/II/107 dated 8th May, 1987 as correct vide Memo No. CIL / C-5A (vi) / 50729 / II / 107 dated 20th July 1987 giving 3 months pay in lieu of notice. 'The service' of Shri Babu Lal therefore, is terminated with immediate effect. 'The service' of Shri Babu Lal therefore, is terminated with immediate effect. A. Cheque bearing No. QJ 400 714004 dated 3rd July 1989 for Rs. 16,823. 55 (Rupees Sixteen thousand eight hundred twenty three and paise fifty five) only, on State Bank of India, Dhanbad, being 3 month's pay in lieu of notice is enclosed. This• issues with the approval of the Competent Authority." 2. The learned Trial Judge upheld the validity of the said order passed under the aforesaid provision, even though the vires of the said provision were under challenge and held that in the facts of the case it was not necessary to take into consideration the legality and validity of the provisions of the said clause 12.4(1)(c) of the said rule as a pure legal proposition and further held that the exercise of the constitutional writ jurisdiction may not be made, if the ultimate decision does not appear to be unjust or unfair and if an aggrieved person does not deserve any interference. 3. Admittedly, in the instant case, no departmental proceeding was drawn up against the appellant and by exercising the power under Clause 12.4(1)(c), his service was terminated by giving three month's pay in lieu of notice. The relevant provisions of the said clause 12.4 may be stated as follows : "12.4(1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the contract of appointment of the executive cadre employee may be terminated otherwise than on disciplinary grounds. (a) Without notice and without assigning any reason during the period of probation, on either side; (b) With one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof after closure of probation period but before confirmation in the service, on either side; (c) With three months notice or pay in lieu thereof on confirmation in the service, on either side. Unless extended by the competent authority the service on an employee on contract shall automatically stand terminated on the expiry of the contract period......." 4. Admittedly, Bharat Coking Coal Limited is an agency and/or instrumentality of the State. Therefore, an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Somprakash vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 SC 212 . 5. Admittedly, Bharat Coking Coal Limited is an agency and/or instrumentality of the State. Therefore, an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Somprakash vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 SC 212 . 5. The vires of the provisions of clause 12.4(1)(c) of the said rule came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 1988, in the case of Guru Prasad Lal vs. Coal India Limited & Ors. Judgment delivered on 23rd November, 1994, and in that case, the Supreme Court, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors., reported• in 1991 (Supp.) 1 SCC 600, declared as ultra vires as offending the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the order of termination of the appellant's service should also be held illegal and the appellant would be entitled to be reinstated but subject to any appropriate action taken against him in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Judgment of the learned Trial .Judge, dated 10th May, 1990, is set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. All arrears to be paid forthwith. 8. The appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without any costs. Nikhil Nath Bhattacharjee, J.: I agree. K.G. Appeals allowed.