IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a government employee can be dismissed from service without a prior inquiry if convicted of a criminal charge, as per the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 10 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bedanta Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Accountant General(A&E), Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5; and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding by the petitioner is to an order, dated 31.03.2023, by which, the petitioner, on his conviction in a criminal proceeding initiated against him, came to be imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service in accordance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read withRule 10 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1964.

3. The petitioner, herein, while working as a District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Darrang, came to be placed under detention on 25.07.2016, by the Vigilance Anti-Corruption Department in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 07/2016 registered under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.

4. On the petitioner being placed under suspension; the respondent authorities vide order, dated 30.07.2016, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension invoking the powers under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services(Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The said order of suspension was followed by initiation of a Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 13.01.2017. The petitioner preferred an appeal praying for revocation of the order of suspension and the same not having been so done, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4267/2018. This Court vide order, dated 23.07.2018, on consideration of the issues arising therein, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to review the order of suspension in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 291.

5. The respondent authorities in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court, proceeded vide order, dated 11.02.2019, to reinstate the petitioner in service, pending disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him.

6. The criminal case as instituted against the petitioner on a charge-sheet being filed, was taken up for consideration by the Court of the learned Special Judge, in Special Case No. 15/2017. The learned trial Court on consideration of the matter, vide its judgment, dated 28.12.2020, proceeded to convict the petitioner against the charges so levelled against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.

7. The petitioner on being convicted; he was taken into custody on 20.12.2020, and subsequently, released on bail by an order passed by this Court vide order, dated 04.06.2021, in IA(Crl.)46/2021. The petitioner being under custody w.e.f. 20.12.2020 till 04.06.2021, he was not allowed, after being released on bail, to discharge his duties and it was construed that he was placed under deemed suspension. Being aggrieved; the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)5858/2021 and this Court, on consideration of the issues arising in the matter held that the petitioner being in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, on being convicted, he came to be placed under deemed suspension by operation of law under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services(