IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction of an employee in an offence involving moral turpitude permits the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding and impose penalties. The release on probation of good conduct does not obliterate the conviction, and the choice and quantum of penalty is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Disciplinary Authority.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petitioner seeking to invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has preferred the instant writ petition assailing an Order under Memo no. CJM/BAR/2017/598[A] dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta as the Appointing Authority-cum-Disciplinary Authority in a discipline proceeding, D.P. no. 1/2013. By the impugned Order dated 16.03.2017, the Appointing Authority-cum-Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect under Rule 7[ii] of the Assam Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1964 upon the petitioner as the delinquent.

2. The sequence of events which have led the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition can be exposited, in brief, as follows :-

2.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Assistant [LDA] in the establishment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta [the respondent no. 3] on 01.02.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the establishment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala on 01.03.1996 and at the time of preferring the writ petition, the petitioner was serving as an Upper Division Assistant [UDA] in the said establishment.

2.2. On 10.05.2002, a First Information Report [FIR] came to be lodged by the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB], Barpeta Road Division before the Officer In-Charge, Barpeta Police Station stating inter alia that the accused persons, named therein, had illegally connected electricity in their respective houses situate at Borbila and Batikuriha villages. The FIR mentioned that such illegal connections of electricity were done with overhead electricity lines through hooking from their respective houses and finding such illegal connections, the ASEB got them disconnected. On the basis of the said FIR, a crime case, Barpeta Police Station Case no. 177/2002 was registered for commission of offences under Section 379, Indian Penal Code r/w Section 39 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation of the said case as the petitioner and few other persons were implicated as accused persons therein. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against four accused persons including the petitioner herein.

2.3. Initially, all the four accused persons appeared before the learned trial court but subsequently, one of the accused persons, Pramod Chandra Das failed to appear to face the trial and the learned trial court, after declaring him as an absconder, proceeded with the trial against the other three accused persons. The learned trial court of Additional Sessions Judge [FTC] at Barpeta finding prima facie materials against the accused persons, framed the charge under Section 135[1][a] of the Electricity Act. When the accused persons pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded and in the course of the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses including the Investigating Officer to bring home the charge against the accused persons. The defence case was one of total denial but the accused persons did not adduce any evidence in defence.

2.4. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence, reached a finding that the accused persons – Bhupendra Nath Deka [the petitioner] and Ajit Das had committed the offence by connecting their houses with illegal electric connections through hookings from the main electric line of the concerned area without any authority. The learned trial court found the two accused persons including the petitioner, guilty of the offence under Section 135 [1][a] of the Electricity Act and had accordingly convicted both of them. The learned trial court was of the view that because of the seriousness of the offence, the accused persons could not be dealt with either under Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [Cr.P.