Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 8th March 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (Annexure-6) on his conviction in a criminal case prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi Branch being RC-11-(A)/2000 (R) by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad on 20th August 2001 under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The petitioner was charged with demanding and accepting illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant Md. Lal Mohd. Ansari allegedly abusing his official position as a public servant to recommend for acceptance of his transfer from Topa Colliery, Kuju Area to Rajrappa Washery Project of the respondent CCL. By the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20th September 2012, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under sections 13(2) read with 13(1) of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of such fine, a further simple imprisonment for eleven months in aggregate has also been ordered. 4. In the aforesaid background of the petitioner's conviction, he was noticed to show-cause under the relevant provisions of Rule 34.1.of Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, as amended up to April 2001, on 23rd November 2012, as to why major penalty of removal/dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. After submission of his response, the respondent no. 2 has found that the conviction of the petitioner for such grave charges of criminal misconduct, justifies the punishment of dismissal from service. 5. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that under Rule 34, the Disciplinary Authority has a discretion to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 27 in the circumstances covered by Rule 34.1(i) where the employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. Rule 34.1 of Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules is quoted hereunder. “34. Rule 34.1 of Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules is quoted hereunder. “34. Special Procedure in Certain Cases 34.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 29 or 30 or 31 the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 27 in any of the following circumstance: (i) the employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Company, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.” 6. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order does not deal with the circumstances which warrants imposition of the maximum punishment of dismissal from service and / or any such other punishment conceived under Rule 27 which include major penalties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind by failing to discuss the relevant circumstances under which such a decision was warranted on the petitioner's conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tulsiram Patel [AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1416 paragraph-127 thereof] to submit that even in case of conviction of an employee, the employer/Disciplinary Authority has to reach the conclusion after full application of mind and satisfaction that amongst several penalties which are conceived, it is only a particular penalty of dismissal/removal from service which should be imposed upon the employee concerned. 7. Having gone through the relevant paragraph cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and considering the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the present case, I find that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the effect of the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded upon him in a matter which relate to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from a person by abusing his position as a public servant and recommending acceptance of transfer of the said complainant from one place to another under the respondent CCL. These offences were of serious moral turpitude and unbecoming of a public servant. The Disciplinary Authority also gave an opportunity to the petitioner for making representation against the proposed major penalty against him and after consideration of his show-cause, has found that continuance of the employee in service is not justified on account of conviction on such grave charges of criminal misconduct. The exercise of power by the Disciplinary Authority in such a manner, cannot be said to be suffering from non application of mind or non consideration of the relevant factors in taking a decision on the question of imposition of punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner. The principle laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Tulsiram Patel (Supra), relied upon by the petitioner, also appears to have been fully observed by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, it appears that the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Appellate Court. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges by the Appellate Court, he is at liberty to approach the employer organization for consideration of his case for reinstatement which may be considered in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.