A disciplinary authority must exercise discretion when imposing penalties for criminal convictions. If an appellate court modifies or sets aside a conviction that served as the basis for dismissal, the authority is legally obligated to reconsider the proportionality of the penalty through a reasoned order.

ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondents.

2. The challenge made in this petition is to the order dated 01.06.2011, passed by the Director of Census Operations, Assam, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of conviction under Sections 448/304 Part-I/325 of IPC under Clause (a) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and The Central Civil Service (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965] on the basis of the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 57(K)/2007. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the non-consideration of his appeal dated 01.06.2020 for reinstatement in the service by recalling the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 on the ground that the High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under /304 Part- I and affirmed the conviction under Section 325 and after completion of the sentence, he has been released.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the Directorate of Census Operations, Assam, in the year 2000 and his service was confirmed after completion of 2 years of probation period.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that on 08.07.2004, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner pursuant to which a case was registered being Dispur P. S. Case No. 598/2004 and after completion of investigation, a Charge Sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 448/325/302 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2005 and subsequently, granted bail on 13.09.2005. On his arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension.

5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 57(K)/2007 under Sections 448/304 Part-I/325 of IPC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default Simple Imprisonment for another 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 448 , to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 304 Part-I of , and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for another 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 325 of .

6. The petitioner filed a criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 114/2010, before this Court. Initially, the Court stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the miscellaneous case in which the stay was granted was subsequently dismissed.

7. The respondent authority, vide impugned order dated 01.06.2011, dismissed the petitioner from service on the basis of the judgment and order dated 26.05.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 57(K)/2007, as the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 304 Part-I and 325 of the IPC and Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 , with default stipulation.

8. Vide an order dated 03.03.2020, this Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 114/2010, whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC has been set aside, while confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 325 of the .

9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an