ABDUL KALAM BORBHUYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.K. Mahanta, learned Government of Assam.

(2.) THE inaction of the respondents in reinstating the petitioner in service after his acquittal in the criminal case instituted against him is the precise grievance that has been raised in the present writ petition. To understand and appreciate the grievance raised, a brief recital of the core facts is considered necessary.

(3.) THE short argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner by Mr. Dey, learned Counsel, is to the effect that though an acquittal in the criminal proceeding need not, ipso facto, be a ground for interfering with an order of dismissal from service, yet, in a given situation, as in the present case, the above position should be understood by the Court to be the natural result of the surrounding circumstances. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the departmental proceeding on the same allegations as in the criminal case against the petitioner ended in the exoneration of the petitioner by order dated 12th February, 1998. Alter the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court by judgment and order dated 7.2.2002, no fresh departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner. Instead, the power under Rule 10 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was invoked and the petitioner was dismissed from service. Rule 10 of the Rules enables the disciplinary authority to impose any punishment following an order of conviction in a criminal case without following the procedure prescribed by Rule 9. In such a situation, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court which must be under -stood to be the entire of the basis for his dismissal from service. The subsequent acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court having set at naught the very basis of the dismissal of the petitioner, it is the submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioner has to be reinstated in service with back benefits.