JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the orders dated 22.07.2010 and 12.08.2011 issued under the signature of Director of Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, are required to be enumerated as under:- It is the case of the writ-petitioner that he was married in village Labaga, P.O.-Balkudara, P.S. Patratru District Hazaribag (now Ramgarh) and thereafter started residing in his matrimonial house due to poverty. In the month of July, 1973 he was engaged as labour supply mazdoor by Shri Mukund Sahu, one of the labour supply contractor of Patratu Thermal Power Station. In the year 1975, a list of contractor’s labour/labour supply mazdoors working in the project on the basis of Labour supply through contractors was prepared with a view for giving reference in the employment on casual/contract labour of the project which contained the name of the petitioner, as he was working as contract labour/labour supply mazdoor under Mechanical Maintenance Division of the Project under the contractor, namely, Mukund Sahu. Further the constant demands were being raised before the authority of project/Board to abolish the labour supply system and appoint the labour supply mazdoors, working against permanent and perennial nature of work, in the regular service of the Board. Thereafter, a memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the Management of Bihar State Electricity Board and their Workmen represented by Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union, Jakkanpur, New Area Patna in course of conciliation proceeding held by Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Bihar, Patna on 24th June, 1977 and it was agreed vide Agenda item no.7 that Electricity Board shall absorb contract labour/labour supply men working against permanent nature of job or maintenance/operation job in Board’s own cadre. A decision in this context was sent to all concerned officers of the board including the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu vide Letter No.626 dated 18th July, 1977 by the Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board stating therein that Board has agreed to abolish the system of engagement of contract labour/labour supply system against permanent and perennial nature of work and to absorb the existing contract labour/labour supply mazdoor working on permanent nature of job in the Board’s own cadre. Further due to non-implementation of the agreement dated 24th June, 1977 and for non-fulfillment of other demands, a strike notice was served to the Board by the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers’ Union resulting in tripartite agreement arrived at on 5th November, 1977 between the Bihar State Electricity Board and Bihar State Electric Supply Workers’ Union at the level of Joint Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna and it was agreed vide item no.3 of the Memorandum of Settlement that as already agreed vide item no.7 of the agreement dated 24th June, 1977, the Board will take steps to implement it at least in respect of Patratu and Barauni Thermal Power Station by 15th December, 1977. In the light of the agreement dated 24th June, 1977 followed by the tripartite agreement dated 5th November, 1977, the directions were issued by the Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board vide its letter no.XIII/Dis-3016/77-1024 dated 7th November, 1977 to implement the settlement dated 5th November, 1977 followed by letter no.XIII/D7-105/77-1010 dated 6th December, 1977. On receipt of directions as aforementioned without calling any applications for the purpose of appointment three sets of office orders were issued by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer appointing altogether 664 contract labour/labour supply workers as unskilled Khalasi vide office order no.7898, 7899 and 8000 dated 15th December, 1977. The petitioner was working as contract labour/labour supply workers in Patratu Thermal Power Station through Shri Mukund Sahu, Contractor and as such his name would have appeared in the in order no.7899 dated 15th December, 1977 by the authority concerned keeping in view the facts that appointment orders of contract workers/labour supply were issued in three sets. The petitioner was working as contract labour/labour supply workers in Patratu Thermal Power Station through Shri Mukund Sahu, Contractor and as such his name would have appeared in the in order no.7899 dated 15th December, 1977 by the authority concerned keeping in view the facts that appointment orders of contract workers/labour supply were issued in three sets. After issuance of the order of appointment vide office order no.7898 dated 15th December, 1977 neither the controlling authority nor the writ-petitioner being an illiterate person could differentiate it that the name of the writ-petitioner would have been appeared in second set of order. The place of posting of the contract labour/labour supply workers after appointment as unskilled khalasi in the regular cadre of Board remained unchanged. The contract labour/labour supply workers, on their appointment as unskilled khalasi, were directed to produce original certificate in support of their educational qualification at the time of joining for verification along with biodata in the format of Board and the controlling authorities were directed to verify the certificates and to obtain the declaration/biodata from contract labour and send the same to Dy. Director of personnel, Patratu Thermal Power Station for records. As directed under clause 2 of appointment order, the petitioner submitted original certificate in support of this educational qualification. It is further stated that due to labour unrest/agitation by local persons for their appointment in the project the order of appointments of all the appointee was kept in abeyance vide office order no.558 dated 04.02.1978 of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station. On enquiry and verification of records, the appointment of 535 persons including the petitioner out 664 numbers of contract labours/labours supply men appointed vide orders dated 15.12.1977 were found genuine in accordance with the directions of the Board for appointment of contract labour/labour supply mazdoor in the regular establishment of the project which was confirmed by the Chief Personnel Manager, Bihar State Electricity Board. However, after working continuously for more than 26 years, in the same department at the Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, the incharge, legal section, vide letter no.5132 dated 26.08.2003 registered P.S. Case No.159 of 2003 against the petitioner in Patratu Thana complaining therein that the petitioner submitted his joining through impersonation and cheating. However, after working continuously for more than 26 years, in the same department at the Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, the incharge, legal section, vide letter no.5132 dated 26.08.2003 registered P.S. Case No.159 of 2003 against the petitioner in Patratu Thana complaining therein that the petitioner submitted his joining through impersonation and cheating. A decision was also taken to place the petitioner under suspension and to initiate departmental proceeding for same/similar charge as alleged in letter no.5132 dated 26.08.2003. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued against him vide order dated 26.12.2003 and an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire the charges alleged against him for the misconduct under clause 29 B(c) and (p) of the certified standing order of the Board as contained in the charge-sheet. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding Patratu, P.S. Case No.159 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.2288 of 2003, TR No.14/07 was decided by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate-I Class, Hazaribagh and judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner being, aggrieved with and dissatisfied with the order of the conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal arising out of judgment passed in G.R. No.2288/2003, T.R. No.14/07 arising out of P.S. Case No.159/03 vide criminal appeal no.139/07 before the appropriate court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the enquiry officer submitted detailed enquiry report to the General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station stating that appointment of the petitioner was genuine as per letter no.384 dated 19.05.1978. It was further reported by the enquiry officer that it is not correct to say that writ petitioner is responsible for loss of file related to his first appointment as maintenance and safety of service records is the responsibility of the officer concerned and the employee working in his office. The enquiry officer was also pleased to report that since the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Court, it would not be proper to decide the case till the matter is sub-judice. Thereafter, the enquiry report was sent to the Director of Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide letter no.2919 dated 23.09.2008 without any comments which inter-alia establish that General Manager, also agreed with the report of enquiry. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued under the signature of Joint Secretary-IV, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi stating therein that the competent authority is not agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued under the signature of Joint Secretary-IV, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi stating therein that the competent authority is not agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. As the order of conviction and sentence has already been passed against the petitioner, therefore, he should explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner in reply to the second show cause notice in the context with the proposed punishment has stated that as to how the proposed punishment was contrary to the provisions made in the certified standing order of the Board and also explaining the actual facts related to appointment of petitioner as unskilled khalasi in terms of memorandum of settlement arrived at between the union and the Board. Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VI, Hazaribagh on 19.07.2010 and the on the basis of re-appreciation of evidence in the light of the provisions of Law, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was set aside by the Hon’ble Court. The petitioner was accordingly, acquitted of the charges framed against him and was also discharged from the liability of his bail bond. After acquittal, the Director of Personnel (In-charge), Jharkhand State Electricity Board ratified the order dated 26.09.2009 of the proposed punishment dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal before the Chairman but the appeal was not disposed of till 21.02.2011 and as such, he filed W.P.(S) No.1051 of 2011 praying therein for quashing the order of termination issued against him. The Hon’ble Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing the Chairman to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble court vide order dated 05.07.2011. The petitioner produced the copy of the order of the Hon’ble Court before the Chairman along with fresh representation on 21.07.2011. But the appellate authority, without recording any reasons and without hearing the petitioner, rejected the appeal petition dated 22.10.2010 of the petitioner in mechanical manner vide memo no.2093 dated 12.08.2011. Therefore, being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has filed present writ petition. 3. But the appellate authority, without recording any reasons and without hearing the petitioner, rejected the appeal petition dated 22.10.2010 of the petitioner in mechanical manner vide memo no.2093 dated 12.08.2011. Therefore, being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has filed present writ petition. 3. It appears from the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner was appointed sometime in the year, 1975 on the basis that his name was enlisted in the list of contract labour/labour supply mazdoors through contractor which was prepared with a view to give preference in the employment on causal/contract labour for the project. The respondents had agreed by entering into an agreement with the union in the name and style of Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union, being registration no.569, Jakkanpur, New Area Patna in course of conciliation proceeding, by which, the agreement was arrived at for absorption of contract labour/labour supply men working against the permanent nature of job and or maintenance/operation job in Board’s own cadre. The writ petitioner, by way of implementation of the agreement dated 24.06.1977 and since was fulfilling the eligibility criteria in terms thereof, has been appointed as Unskilled Khalasi vide office order nos.7898, 7899 and 8000 dated 15.12.1977, by way of three such decisions, altogether 242 contract labours were appointed. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed by way of absorption in terms of bi-partite agreement settlement arrived in course of conciliation and has started discharging his duty. The appointment letter dated 15.12.1977, has been appended as Annexure3 to the writ petition. It is evident from the appointment letter that the writ petitioner was appointed by way of absorption since he was working as a contract labour. It further appears from the appointment letter that along with the petitioner, the others were also appointed being supplied by the contractor and they were displaced persons, in lieu of acquisition of land for the purpose of construction. The name of the writ petitioner appears at serial no.70, as contained with the order of appointment. The writ petitioner, while working as such, was proceeded departmentally in the allegation of impersonation. Apart from the departmental proceeding, a criminal case was also instituted being Patratu P.S. Case No.159 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.2288 of 2003 (T.R. No.14/07). The writ petitioner had participated in the departmental proceeding and put-forth his defence before the inquiry officer. The writ petitioner, while working as such, was proceeded departmentally in the allegation of impersonation. Apart from the departmental proceeding, a criminal case was also instituted being Patratu P.S. Case No.159 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.2288 of 2003 (T.R. No.14/07). The writ petitioner had participated in the departmental proceeding and put-forth his defence before the inquiry officer. The inquiry report has been appended as Annexure-10/1, wherefrom, it is evident that the charge as has been alleged of impersonation has not conclusively been proved, rather, it has been left awaiting the outcome of the criminal case, but, a show cause notice was issued. It appears from the show cause that the writ petitioner has been asked to reply as to why, he be not dismissed from service on the basis of charge proved by the inquiry officer of impersonation, as also he has been convicted in the criminal case being Patratu P.S. Case No.159 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.2288 of 2003 (T.R. No.14/07). The writ petitioner has responded thereto, but according to the petitioner, without giving due consideration of the fact that there is no conclusive finding of the inquiry officer proving the charge, rather, the same has been left awaiting for outcome of the criminal case, but even then, the order of dismissal has been passed on 22.07.2010, appended as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the following grounds:- (i) The second show cause notice which has been issued, appended as Annexure-12 dated 26.09.2009 shows that the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved, rather, on the ground of pendency of criminal case awaiting its outcome, conclusion has not been arrived at but even then, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice asking the writ petitioner to give reply as to why he be not dismissed from service coupled with that reason, the reference of conviction in the criminal case, has also been referred therein. The writ petitioner, therefore, has raised the ground that the departmental proceeding, since altogether separate to that of criminal case then there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to refer the judgment of conviction, rather, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority only to make reference of finding recorded by the inquiry officer but herein, since, there is no conclusive finding of proving of charge and that is the reason, the reference of conviction in the criminal case has been referred and hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable, it is due to the reason that the conviction in the criminal case since is having no nexus with the departmental proceeding and hence, the same ought not to have referred in the show cause. (ii) It has been contended by referring to the order passed by the disciplinary authority that the disciplinary authority has come to conclusion of inflicting the punishment of dismissal that the writ petitioner was appointed under the displaced category, while the fact was that he has been provided appointment by way of absorption, since he was working on contract basis, not on the ground of having been displaced, therefore, the question has been raised that from where such finding has been given basing the same for a reason of dismissal when there is no conclusion to that effect by the inquiry officer. (iii) Further contention has been raised that the judgment of conviction has been reversed by the appellate court by acquitting the writ petitioner and even accepting the very basis of order of dismissal to be the judgment of conviction and the moment, the same has been reversed to that of acquittal, the very ground will be said to be non-est and hence, on this ground also, the order of dismissal requires to be recalled by the authority concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order of dismissal is absolutely incorrect, improper and unreasonable and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted by referring to the inquiry report wherein, the inquiry officer came to the finding after going through the relevant records and the various documents, basis upon which, the charge of impersonation of getting the appointment under the displaced category has found to be correct. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted by referring to the inquiry report wherein, the inquiry officer came to the finding after going through the relevant records and the various documents, basis upon which, the charge of impersonation of getting the appointment under the displaced category has found to be correct. But the inquiry officer in all fairness, since, the judicial proceeding was pending, hence, has not given conclusive finding. But the moment, the writ petitioner was convicted in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority has issued second show cause notice and the same has been responded to and on being considered by the disciplinary authority, the order of dismissal has been passed, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from any impropriety. Mr. Sinha, has also referred the counter affidavit, wherein, the allegation of impersonation has been explained. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record more particularly the inquiry report and the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. This Court before proceeding to examine, the legality and propriety of the action taken by the respondents’ authorities and the order of dismissal, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements in this regard. The first relevant would be that as to whether the departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding, are having any nexus to each other. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vrs. Mohammad Abdul Raheem, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 67 , wherein, at paragraph-8 & 9, it has been held that:- “8. Before delving into the contentious issues arising from the arguments advanced, the issue with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Sastry Award may be dealt with in the first instance. According to us, the said provisions do not have any special significance inasmuch as there can be no doubt on the proposition that on the very same facts that give rise to a criminal offence it is always open to the employer to initiate a departmental proceeding which option the employer may or may not exercise. According to us, the said provisions do not have any special significance inasmuch as there can be no doubt on the proposition that on the very same facts that give rise to a criminal offence it is always open to the employer to initiate a departmental proceeding which option the employer may or may not exercise. In the event the employer chooses to initiate a departmental proceeding, it would be open for such an employer to take disciplinary action against the erring employee if the charges levelled are found to be substantiated notwithstanding the acquittal of the employee in the criminal case that may have been lodged against him. This is on the principle that standard of proof in a criminal case and a departmental proceeding is different. However, in a case where the employer chooses not to initiate a departmental proceeding and acts only on the basis of the conviction in the criminal prosecution, he would be bound by the final verdict in the same i.e. in case of a reversal. The provisions of the Sastry Award, relied upon on behalf of the respondent, therefore, do not in any manner alter the basic principles surrounding the initiation of a criminal action and a departmental enquiry on the same set of facts and the consequences thereof. 9. In the present case, the respondent was acquitted by the appellate court. There can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal would relate back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. On that basis, there can be no manner of doubt that the substratum of the cause that had led to the respondent's dismissal/discharge in the present case had ceased to exist. The same would entitle him to be reinstated in service, an act that has been duly performed by the appellant Bank.” 8. It is, thus, evident by going through the aforesaid judgment that in a case, where employer chooses not to initiate a departmental proceeding and acts only on the basis of the conviction of criminal prosecution, he would be bound by the final verdict in the same, i.e., in case of a reversal. It is, thus, evident by going through the aforesaid judgment that in a case, where employer chooses not to initiate a departmental proceeding and acts only on the basis of the conviction of criminal prosecution, he would be bound by the final verdict in the same, i.e., in case of a reversal. It is evident from paragraph-9 of the aforesaid judgment that in the aforesaid case also, the dismissal was based upon the conviction in the criminal case and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that there can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal would relate back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. However herein, the departmental proceeding was initiated but kept in abeyance and thereafter, when the writ petitioner was convicted, then second show cause notice was issued and the order of dismissal was passed against him. 9. On the issue of jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to issue second show cause notice on the basis of the conviction in the criminal case along with the finding of the inquiry officer, will also govern from the aforesaid judgments due to the reason that when the departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding are on two different parameters, then the disciplinary has got no jurisdiction to take the ground of conviction in the criminal case along with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer, if any, for the purpose of issuance of show cause notice. 10. The issue which is relevant for the purpose of just and appropriate decision of the lis is that as to whether, the inquiry report (Annexure-10) can be said to be a conclusive finding of the inquiry officer and if there is no conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer, whether on the basis of the aforesaid inconclusive inquiry report, the second show cause notice of the order of punishment can be issued. 11. The law is well settled in this regard that the inquiry can be conducted by the disciplinary authority himself or by the delegation of power to the inquiry officer. 12. 11. The law is well settled in this regard that the inquiry can be conducted by the disciplinary authority himself or by the delegation of power to the inquiry officer. 12. If the disciplinary authority himself is an inquiry officer, then in that eventuality, there is no occasion to give second show cause notice but if the disciplinary authority is different to that of inquiry officer, then certainly it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority while accepting the inquiry report or in case of its refusal, the second show cause notice is to be given in case of acceptance but in case of refusal, the difference of opinion is to be given by providing an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee showing the reason of difference, so as to provide effective and adequate opportunity before taking final decision. Herein, the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are to different identity. The inquiry officer has conducted inquiry and submitted a report before the disciplinary authority. It would be evident from the inquiry report, appended as Annexure-10 that the inquiry officer has not come to the conclusive finding of proving the charge, rather, the finding has been recorded that the allegation of taking the original file, cannot be said to be an act of the writ petitioner, but without giving any conclusive finding, has come out with the conclusion that since the criminal case is pending and as such, it would not be proper for him to take an appropriate decision. It is evident from the inquiry report that inquiry officer has not found the charge proved. It is also not reflected from the inquiry report that the same has been forwarded before the disciplinary authority and the reason for not forwarding is that due to the pendency of the criminal case, the inquiry officer has thought not proper to take decision regarding imputation of allegation. But, the disciplinary authority has issued second show cause notice considering the report dated 03.09.2008, wherein, no charge is being proved since, the inquiry officer has not thought it proper to take decision due to pendency of the criminal case, but even then, the same has been considered as inquiry report proving the charge against the writ petitioner. But, the disciplinary authority has issued second show cause notice considering the report dated 03.09.2008, wherein, no charge is being proved since, the inquiry officer has not thought it proper to take decision due to pendency of the criminal case, but even then, the same has been considered as inquiry report proving the charge against the writ petitioner. Further, since in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case, therefore, the same has also been referred in the second show cause notice asking the writ petitioner as to why, he be not dismissed from service. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has been dismissed from service. But the writ petitioner just prior to passing of the order of dismissal dated 22.07.2010, was acquitted on 19.07.2010. The writ petitioner, however, could not be in a position to bring to the notice of the disciplinary authority about his acquittal in the criminal case, but, while preferring an appeal before the appellate authority, he has brought the aforesaid fact into his notice but without appreciating the same, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal. 13. This Court, on the basis of the consideration of effect of acquittal in the criminal case, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-8 & 9 of the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vrs. Mohammad Abdul Raheem (supra), as quoted and referred hereinabove and applying the same in the facts of the given case, wherein, exactly the fact is similar, since, the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court but acquitted by the appellate court. 14. It would be evident from the second show cause notice dated 26.09.2009 that the dismissal is based upon the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and after acquittal of the writ petitioner in the said criminal case, the same would relate back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. On the basis thereof, the substratum of the cause that had led to the dismissal of the writ petitioner, ceased to exist, the same would entitle him to reinstate in service. 15. On the basis thereof, the substratum of the cause that had led to the dismissal of the writ petitioner, ceased to exist, the same would entitle him to reinstate in service. 15. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the factual aspect as also the legal position as referred above, is of the view that the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority suffer from impropriety and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law by taking into consideration the fact that the respondents’ authorities have erred in taking decision by deviating from the process which ought to have been adopted for passing the order of dismissal. 16. Accordingly, the orders dated 22.07.2010 and 12.08.2011 passed by the Director of Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, are hereby quashed and set aside. 17. In view thereof, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 18. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.