The central legal point established in the judgment is that a conviction under Section 7(t) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, does not amount to a criminal charge as per Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Being aggrieved by his dismissal from service vide order dated 06.12.2002, passed in exercise of powers under Rule (19) (i) of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules), seeks judicial redress.

2. I have heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. TB Jamir, learned Central Government Counsel.

3. The Petitioner, who was selected to be appointed as a Riflemen/General duty by the Assam Rifles on the basis of a process initiated to that effect was saddled with a charge under Section 7(t)of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 (hereafter for short also referred to as the Act) for having fraudulently secured his appointment by furnishing wrong address of his. A Court of enquiry was held, whereafter, by the order dated 04.09.2002 of the concerned authority, he having been found guilty of the charge, was convicted under the aforementioned provision of the Act and was sentenced to suffer 28 days rigorous imprisonment in Assam Rifles custody. Following his said conviction, vide a memorandum dated 10.09.2002 (Annexure A to the writ petition), he was afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed penalty of ouster from service in exercise of powers under Rule 19(i) of the Rules for having been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 7(i) of the Act. Though, the Petitioner got a reply submitted through his Advocate, in supercession of the earlier notice dated 10.09.2002, however, the disciplinary authority in the same directions issued the memorandum dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) proposing to take action under Rule 19 of the Rules. The Petitioner has impugned his dismissal principally on the ground that his conviction under Section 7(t) of the Act is not one construable on a criminal charge as comprehended in Rule 19(i) and, the summary procedure as envisaged therein could not have been resorted to and, thus, the impugned order of dismissal is non est in law. It has been alternatively urged as well that having regard to the nature of the charge, the penalty of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate.

4. Mr. Jamir, per contra, while highlighting the gravity of the charge vis-a-vis the service involved, has urged that the penalty of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the Petitioner for his conviction under Section 7(t) of the Act amounts to his conviction on a criminal charge and, thus, the impugned action is valid and does not warrant any interference.

5. Having regard to the issue raised, it is considered essential at this stage to dwell on the nature of the charge levelled against the Petitioner. Suffice it to mention that he was convicted under Section7 of the Act, which reads as hereinabove:

7. Other offences including acts prejudicial to good order and discipline - A riflemen who - neglects to obey any battalion or other orders, or commits any act or omission prejudicial to good order and discipline such act or omission not constituting an offence under the Indian Penal Code or other Act in force in Assam. Section 8 enumerates the minor offences and punishment, which includes, inter alia, imprisonment in Quarter Guard.

6. To reiterate, that the Petitioner was convicted under Section 7(t) of the Act and was made to suffer 28 days RI is a matter of record. Rule 19 of the Rules, where under, admittedly, the order of dismissal has been passed also deserves to be extracted to the extent relevant, which is as follows:

19. Special procedure in certain cases;

i) whether any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

The Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.

7. It is more than evident from the above provision of the Rules that the action permissible there under is an exception to the usual procedure elaborated in Rule 14 to 18 thereof. In ot