JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through die records of this case. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that respondent No. l was prosecuted under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur in case No.25-2 of 1992. By means of judgment dated 30th September, 1992, the trial court found him guilty of all the offences for which he was charged i.e. under Sections 279/337/338 of die Indian Penal Code. While hearing the said respondent No. 1 on quantum of sentence, the trial court was of the view that since respondent No. 1 is the first offender, as well as has got his aged parents and children to look after as there is none other person to look after them which position is not disputed by the prosecution besides this, no previous conviction was brought to the notice of the trial court, accordingly taking a lenient view of the matter he was admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was warned not to commit such offence in future and be careful. The respondent a questioned this judgment of the trial court in Criminal Appeal 2 of 1993 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By means of judgment dated 25th June, 1996 while dismissing the appeal, it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge below that since the appellant is first offender without any previous conviction at his credit and he being the only bread earner of his family, he deserves to be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. It was further observed that the trial Court had already taken lenient view by ordering his releasing under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, after due admonition. The appellate Court further observed that respondent No. l (Appellant in the said appeal) was an employee of H.R.T.C. and on account of the above conviction has been dismissed from the service and was thus, dealt with harshly in the opinion of the appellate Court by the department. In those circumstances, the court observed that "I, therefore order that his conviction under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC shall have no effect on his future service. In case he has been dismissed from service on the grounds of his conviction, in this case, he. In those circumstances, the court observed that "I, therefore order that his conviction under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC shall have no effect on his future service. In case he has been dismissed from service on the grounds of his conviction, in this case, he. should be reinstated immediately. His conviction in this case shall nut have any adverse effect on his future service, in any manner." It is this part of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1993, dated 25th June, 1996, in case Onkar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, by which the petitioners are aggrieved. 3. It may be necessary to dialate on few other facts in this case. It appears that employer of respondent No. l i.e. H.R.T.C. at its Mandi Division, Mandi had initiated inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against respondent No. l and after receipt of the inquiry report from the Inquiring Officer, notice of show cause for imposition of major penalty had been served upon the petitioner on the basis of such inquiry report. After receipt of representation from respondent No. l to the show cause notice, he was removed from services on 5th June, 1995 vide Annexure P-11 by the Divisional Manager of petitioner No. l Corporation of its Mandi Division. 4. Order of his removal from services was questioned by respondent No. 1 by means of appeal under the Service Rules before the appellate authority, i.e. Managing Director who by means of order dated 20th November, 1996 (Annexure P-2) had dismissed the appeal. 5. 4. Order of his removal from services was questioned by respondent No. 1 by means of appeal under the Service Rules before the appellate authority, i.e. Managing Director who by means of order dated 20th November, 1996 (Annexure P-2) had dismissed the appeal. 5. It was before passing of Annexure P-2 i.e. the order of dismissal of appeal preferred by respondent No. l against his removal from service and after the passing of the judgment on 25th June, 1996 by the appellate Court, i.e. Sessions Judge Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1993, that respondent No. 1 filed contempt petition by means of application (Annexure P-3) against petitioner No.2, Prafool Kumar, Division Manager of petitioner No. l at its Mandi Divisional at Mandi wherein it was prayed that after due inquiry the petition may be allowed and the petitioners reinstatement/restoration in service of the Corporation be secured by annulling and wrong, illegal, void and un-Constitutional order dated 5th June, 1995 (Annexure P-l) passed by petitioner No.2 and it was further prayed that appropriate legal action may taken against the said petitioner No.2, for not complying with the directions of the appellate court supra. 6." It is in the aforesaid background as well as facts and circumstances of the case that the matter came up before this court in the present petition. 7. The sole question that needs to be considered in this case is whether the removal of the petitioner from service in terms of Annexure P-l dated 5th June, 1995 which has been upheld by the appellate authority by means of Annexure P-2 dated 20th November, 1996 is the result of passing of the judgment by the trial court, referred to supra and upheld in appeal with certain directions, detailed here in this judgment, or was based on independent inquiry having been conducted by Appointing Authority under the C.C.S. (C.C.& A) Rules, 1965 or not. In these circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the records of this case on the basis whereof removal of the petitioner No. l had been ordered. The record was produced by Shri Chandel on 2nd June, 1997. Permission to inspect the same was granted to Shri Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. l. 8. In these circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the records of this case on the basis whereof removal of the petitioner No. l had been ordered. The record was produced by Shri Chandel on 2nd June, 1997. Permission to inspect the same was granted to Shri Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. l. 8. After having inspected the record, Shri Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, was not in a position to support the application for dis-obedience filed by his client vide Annexure P-3. It was further pointed out by Shri Thakur that firstly the petitioner No. l should have taken lenient view of the matter and at least on humanitarian grounds, his client should be allowed to be continued in service. 9. Prima facie from the record, it is clear that independent departmental inquiry was held in accordance with the rules on the basis whereof the disciplinary authority passed order of removal of the petitioner from the services vide Annexure P-l in appeal preferred by respondent No. l against Annexure P-l, the said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, there is no question of the petitioner having been dismissed from service on the ground of his having been convicted by the criminal court and that is not the basis for his removal from service, which as already -observed, is on the basis of departmental inquiry and said respondent No. l had adequate opportunity in accordance with law to have defended himself in the said departmental inquiry. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is Clear that there is no dis-obedience of any direction of the order of Sessions fudge, Bilaspur issued by him while dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1993 on 25th June, 1996 and in this view of the matter, there arises no question if any action being initiated against any of the petitioners. In this context, it nay be appropriate to mention that the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in the appeal supra filed by respondent No. l is of 25th June, 1996, whereas petitioner was removed from service on 5th June, 1995, as is evident from Annexure P-l. 11. In this context, it nay be appropriate to mention that the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in the appeal supra filed by respondent No. l is of 25th June, 1996, whereas petitioner was removed from service on 5th June, 1995, as is evident from Annexure P-l. 11. As already held that the removal of respondent No. l from service was not on account of his having been convicted by the criminal Court but is jased on independent departmental inquiry, as such there is no question of the espondent No. l being taken back in service/reinstated as ordered by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide his judgment dated 25th June, 1993 in Criminal Appeal No.2of 1993. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition Allowed