Judgment Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the year 1970 and he was posted at Ghanudih Colliery. An F.I.R. under Sections 420/471/120B I.P.C. and under Section 5(i)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner, while he was posted at Ghanudih. By judgment and order dated 07.03.1998, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 120B I.P.C. and he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 5(i)(d) r/w Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 1998 before the High Court and by order dated 29.07.1998, he was ordered to be released on bail. On 25.08.2003, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.08.2003 requesting the authorities not to initiate disciplinary action against him during the pendency of the Cr. Appeal before the High Court. However, Respondent No. 2 passed order of dismissal from service on 19.09.2003 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking a stand that merely because the Cr. Appeal was admitted by the High Court, the authorities were not precluded from initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In view of the conviction of the petitioner in the Cr. Appeal, the respondent-Company invoked the provision of certified standing order and in exercise of power conferred under certified standing order, the order of removal from service of the petitioner has been passed by the respondent-Company. For these reasons, the order of dismissal does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Ms. Pragati Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the specific order issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad on 01.03.1999, Respondent No. 3 was not within his rights to initiate departmental proceeding and invoke the provisions under the certified standing order for passing the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 6. On the other hand, Ms. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Richa Ishita, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition on the grounds taken in the counter-affidavit by the respondents. 7. It appears from the record of the case that the Cr. Appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted by the Hon'ble Patna High Court however, no order of stay of conviction was passed by the High Court. Moreover, it has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Cr. Appeal filed before the High Court was disposed of and the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner which was converted into Cr. Appeal No. 170 of 2008 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.