A.K.Sinha, J. - (1.) These two rules were issued at the instance of the petitioners inter alia for quashing the orders of dismissal from their services on the ground of criminal conviction.
(2.) The facts which are substantially the same in both the petitions are as follows:-- The petitioners at the material time were working as Railway Guards under the South Eastern Railway. On or about 11th July, 1959, a complaint was made by the Railway Protection Force Havildar alleging theft of certain goods which were entrusted to the petitioners. It was alleged that petitioner L. E. Foran, in fact, committed the offence and the petitioner A. B. Culvert abetted him. Thereafter, the petitioner L. E. Foran was charged under Sections 409/100 and A. B. Culvert under Section 409, Indian Penal Code and tried by the Judge Special Court, Midnapore. On conclusion of trial each of the petitioners was convicted and sentenced to three months" rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the petitioners preferred appeals to this Court against their conviction which were admitted and petitioners were enlarged on bail. This was communicated to the respondents who thereafter directed the petitioners to send them copies of the orders made by this Court for their perusal. In spite of this the respondent No. 1 without giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity to show cause dismissed them with effect from 26th July, 1964 by his orders dated 24th July, 1964. The petitioners thus felt aggrieved and came upto this Court and obtained the above rules.
(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners is that during the pendency of the above appeals the petitioners could not be dismissed on conviction by Criminal Court. It was contended that although there were convictions by Criminal Court they had not yet been final as appeals against such convictions which are really continuation of their trial held by the Criminal Court are yet pending. Unless, therefore, these appeals were finally disposed of, the orders of dismissal of the petitioners on the ground of conviction by Criminal Court could not be made. In support of the above contention, Mr. P. K. Banerjee, learned Advocate ' for the petitioners, relied on a decision of a single Judge of Allahabad High Court, to show that a proceeding could not be said to have led to their conviction within the meaning of Article 311 (2) proviso, Clause (a) if it had not resulted ultimately in conviction or as a consequence of appeal, had ended in an acquittal and thus the dismissal orders against certain Railway employees passed when appeals against their convictions under the Penal Code by the trial Court were pending before the appellate Court which ultimately allowed the case of the employees, were not covered by the above proviso to that Article. Reliance was also placed on several other decisions to show that these decisions also took the same view.;