JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner while posted as Technical Junior Engineer under Sonbarsha Division, Saharsa in the office of Engineer-in- Chief of the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, has been terminated from service after considering his reply to show cause. The power has been exercised under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. 2. Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 reads as follows:- “20. Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 17 to 19- (i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by him in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, or (iii) where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: Provided that the Government Servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i): Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule. 3. Heard Mr. Kanth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 673 as affirmed by Division in the order and judgment dated 13.9.2012 passed in LPA No. 441 of 2012 reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 887 , he submits that the order dated 2.6.2014 in purported exercise of powers under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was working as a daily wager under the National Rural Employment Project in between the period 1982 to 1983. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was working as a daily wager under the National Rural Employment Project in between the period 1982 to 1983. The conviction of the petitioner under judgment dated 30.3.2013 passed by Court of Special Judge, Vigilance II, Patna in Special Case No. 25 of 1992 is in relation to charges pertaining to allegation/occurrence in between 1982 to 1983, during which period the petitioner was a daily wager. 4. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2(k) and 2(o) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 read with Rule 3(b) of the same, the provisions of Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 would not be applicable in instant case. It is his submission that since the alleged offence leading to his conviction in Special Case No. 25 of 1992 is for an occurrence during period when he was a daily wager, the respondent authorities cannot resort to the procedure contained in Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. In order to appreciate this submission this Court would reproduce the relevant provisions relied upon by learned Senior Counsel:- Rule 2(k) reads: “2. Definition. -For the purposes of these Rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (k) 'Government servant' means a person who (i) is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the State and it includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily entrusted to the Government, or a local or other authority; (ii) is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the Government and whose services are temporarily entrusted to the Union Government or any other State Government;” Rule 2(o) reads:- “(o) 'Service' means a civil service of the State;” Rule 3(b) reads:- “3. Application of these Rules. -(1) These Rules shall apply to every Government Servant but shall not apply to- (b) any person in casual employment,” 5. By referring to these Rules learned Senior Counsel has submitted that . Rule 20(i) clearly specified the scope of the provision. The authorities are therefore precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Rule 20, since the conduct which has led to petitioner’s conviction is in relation to a period when he was not a “government servant” within the meaning of Rule 2(k) read with Rule 2(o) of the said Rules. Rule 20(i) clearly specified the scope of the provision. The authorities are therefore precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Rule 20, since the conduct which has led to petitioner’s conviction is in relation to a period when he was not a “government servant” within the meaning of Rule 2(k) read with Rule 2(o) of the said Rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the petitioner was not a government servant during the period of allegations constituting criminal charge, the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner in light of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (b) of Rule 3(i) thereof. It is submitted that during the said period since the petitioner was in casual employment, Bihar CCA Rules 2005 cannot be applied. 6. Counsel for the State submits that applicability of Rule 20 cannot be disputed by the petitioner since he is a government servant holding substantive post in the services of the State on a civil post at the time when order has been issued under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. In view of petitioner’s conviction in a criminal charge during his service tenure in a substantive capacity on a civil post the authorities were fully justified in resorting to the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 for terminating the services of the petitioner. 7. The facts are not in dispute to the extent that in the period 1982 – 1983 the petitioner was a daily wager. 8. Conviction in proceedings arising out of Vigilance (Special) Case No. 25 of 1992 was on 30.3.2013. On the date of conviction the petitioner was a government servant. This facts is also not disputed. 9. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts the petitioner being a government servant in employment of the State on 2.6.2014, would surely come within the purview of Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. 10. Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 does not make a distinction whether the penalty imposed on a government servant is on the grounds of conduct leading to his conviction on a criminal charge pertaining to his services under the State Government or not. There is also no such requirement under Rule 20(i) that criminal charge leading to his conviction must necessarily be in relation to and pertaining to the period of his employment in government service. Rule 20 is very clear in this respect. There is also no such requirement under Rule 20(i) that criminal charge leading to his conviction must necessarily be in relation to and pertaining to the period of his employment in government service. Rule 20 is very clear in this respect. Therefore the Division Bench in the proceedings arising out of LPA No. 441 of 2012 in the case of State of Bihar vs. Shyam Kishore Sinha, reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 887 , has after considering various judgments of the Apex Court and the law in this regard has observed as follows:- “19. Thus, for the purpose of exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, there is no condition that the offence for which the employee is convicted and sentenced had been committed not in discharge of duty or had been committed prior to the entry in service. Once, the Government servant is convicted of a criminal offence, the appointing authority has a right to punish such a Government servant without holding enquiry envisaged by Article 311(2) of the Constitution and without giving him opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed………….” 11. The Division Bench, however, had taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances that existed in favour of the employee in the said proceeding regarding the allegation i.e. the criminal charge and the nature of the offence. Having taken note of such mitigating circumstances and the fact that without considering the mitigating circumstances the authorities had resorted to power conferred by proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, had interferred with the order passed under proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. No such plea of mitigating circumstances have been raised in the instant case. 12. Proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India contains identical conditions for dispensing with requirement of an enquiry where the order of dismissal/removal or reduction in rank is “on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge”. The same expression is found in Rule 20(i) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. Rule 20(i) also contemplates the same condition. Therefore, the law as declared by the Division Bench in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha (supra) squarely covers the matter in the instant proceeding. The same expression is found in Rule 20(i) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. Rule 20(i) also contemplates the same condition. Therefore, the law as declared by the Division Bench in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha (supra) squarely covers the matter in the instant proceeding. Since the conditions provided in proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 20(i) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 are pari materia there is no scope for this Court to take a view different and contrary from the view taken by Division Bench in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha (supra). 13. The procedure prescribed under Rule 20 has admittedly been adopted. No dispute has been raised in the instant proceeding by learned Senior Counsel that the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 has been violated. In fact applicability of the procedure under Rule 20 has been disputed in the instant case. In view of the law as contained in the order of the Division Bench in the case of Shyam Kishore Sinha (supra), rule 20 has rightly been invoked by the authorities as the same was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case where the penalty is imposed on the petitioner who is a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction, while in service, on a criminal charge. 14. No case is made out for this Court to interfere with exercise of power by the authorities under Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 by the authorities. 15. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.