Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed . against the orders, as contained in Annexures 4 and 5, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the service tenure of the petitioner, he was made an accused in a criminal case and, ultimately, he was tried and he was found guilty under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and on account of the criminal charge and on the order of the punishment, he has been dismissed from services without following the Rule of Law. It is further submitted that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any show cause notice was given to him as to why action may not be taken departmentally against him for his involvement in a criminal case. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that since the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, he was dismissed summarily in light of the circular dated 3.8.1983 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. 5. A Government servant who has been found guilty for a criminal charge, can be proceeded against departmentally, but he cannot be dismissed summarily without initiation of a departmental proceeding or without following the principles of Natural Justice. 6. I do not find any provision even in annexure A to suggest that a Government servant, who has been found guilty in a criminal case, should be dismissed summarily without following the Rule of Law or principles of Natural Justice. Even assuming that there is some executive instruction, the same will not take away the force of statutory provisions of law, whereby and whereunder a Government servant can be proceeded against departmentally. 7. It is not in dispute that neither a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any show-cause notice was given confirming the test of principles of the Natural Justice. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, orders impugned, as contained in annexures 4 and 5, are held to be wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and most unreasonable. 9. 7. It is not in dispute that neither a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any show-cause notice was given confirming the test of principles of the Natural Justice. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, orders impugned, as contained in annexures 4 and 5, are held to be wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and most unreasonable. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the orders, as contained in annexures 4 and 5, are set aside, and consequently thereof, the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits.