ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing the charge framed against him on 28.3.2007 (Annexure 6) and also for quashing the order dated 6.4.2007 (Annexure 7), whereby and whereunder departmental inquiry was sought to be initiated against the petitioner. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to revoke the order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure 6) whereby the petitioner was put under suspension. 2. During the pendency of this writ application, petitioner's services, after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, was terminated. The facts relating to subsequent development alongwith corresponding prayer for quashing the order of termination of his service dated 20.7.1987 was brought on record by the petitioner by way of his amendment petition. 3. The petitioner was employed as LTC clerk in Angarpathra Colliery of BCCL, Katras Area within the District of Dhanbad. On 22.9.1986 an FIR was lodged against him by the Inspector, CBI on certain specific allegations for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was put on trial and he was convicted by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he had misappropriated/embezzled substantial amount of money. At the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.7.1987 by the order of the General Manager, BCCL, Katras Area, Dhanbad. Against the order of his dismissal, the petitioner had preferred his appeal before the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (IR), BCCL, Dhanbad Personnel Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad. His appeal was allowed on 24.12.1990-with a direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service with immediate effect though subject to the condition that he would not be paid salary from the date of his dismissal or from the date of stopping of his salary till the date of his reinstatement. After his reinstatement, the petitioner had continued to work. However, on being informed about the order/judgment of conviction which was passed by the trial Court on 12.3.2007, the respondents started a fresh departmental proceeding against him by issuance of a letter dated 28.3.2007 whereby he was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry and the memorandum of charge (Annexure 6) was served upon him on 28.3.2007. However, on being informed about the order/judgment of conviction which was passed by the trial Court on 12.3.2007, the respondents started a fresh departmental proceeding against him by issuance of a letter dated 28.3.2007 whereby he was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry and the memorandum of charge (Annexure 6) was served upon him on 28.3.2007. By order dated 6.4.2007 (Annexure 7) the respondent authorities appointed an inquiry officer and proceeded with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner on the charges. 4. Shri A. Allam, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the, petitioner, submits that by initiating a departmental proceeding for the second time on the same set of allegations, and charges for which he was earlier proceeded departmentally and an order of dismissal of service was issued which was set aside in appeal, such action on the part of the respondents amounts to subjecting the petitioner to double jeopardy since the allegations in the second charge (impugned) are identically the same as were in the earlier charge for which inquiry was initiated and concluded. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, refuting the entire grounds as advanced by the petitioner. Shri A. Sen, learned Counsel representing the respondents, would explain that the initiation of the present departmental inquiry against the petitioner cannot be termed as a case of double Jeopardy. Learned Counsel explains that though, in the earlier departmental inquiry, the petitioner was charged with gross misconduct on the charge that he had embezzled/misappropriated public money, but in the present inquiry, the charge is based on the fact that he has been convicted for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years be-sides payment of fine. Learned Counsel explains that as per Service Rule of the respondent company, which guides the conditions of the petitioner's service, if a person is convicted for any offence, by a criminal Court, it would be a ground for dismissal. The petitioner therefore, cannot escape the liability to face departmental inquiry on such charges. Learned Counsel argues further that considering the subsequent developments and the fact that the petitioner's services has since been finally terminated at the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the present writ application is not maintainable since an alternative remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum is available to the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel argues further that considering the subsequent developments and the fact that the petitioner's services has since been finally terminated at the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the present writ application is not maintainable since an alternative remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum is available to the petitioner. 6. I find force in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Since now, the petitioner's services have been finally terminated pursuant to the departmental inquiry which has already been concluded, the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of his termination, he has his remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum. The petitioner can very well plead all the grounds which he has taken in the present writ application, in appeal and it would be within the competence of the appellate forum to consider and adjudicate upon all the issues raised in appeal. 7. Petitioner has not made out any special circumstance for invoking writ jurisdiction of his Court. As explained by the respondents and as would be evident from the admitted facts, the earlier departmental inquiry against the petitioner was on the charges of grave misconduct based on the allegations of embezzlement of public money. The present departmental inquiry is based on different ground of petitioner's conviction by a competent Court of law for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the service rules of the respondent company do provide for taking appropriate action against the employee who has been convicted for any offence. The petitioner has therefore not made out any such circumstances to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer appeal before the appropriate forum against the order of this termination from his service. Application dismissed.