JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for all the State respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure-I) issued by the respondent No.4 dismissing him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner who was appointed as an Armed Branch Constable on 17.03.1994 was given a show-cause notice on 18.10.2014 (Annexure-D) to the effect that while the petitioner was posted at Hamren Police Reserve on 13.07.2014 committed rape upon one Smt. Roma Banik. The petitioner threatened the victim of dire consequence, if she divulged about the incident to anybody. As a result of the FIR filed subsequently on 13.09.2014, P.S. Case No.30 of 2014 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered against him on 15.09.2014. Under such circumstances, the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force was found to be guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline. It may also be noted herein that the petitioner prior to being given the show-cause notice was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.09.2014. 3. He was, therefore, asked to show-cause under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part.III and also Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Besides this, Rule 7 of the Assam Police Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 was also sought to be invoked requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why the penalty prescribed under the mentioned provision should not be inflicted upon him. In order to submit an explanation to the Charges, 10 days time was given to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner by denying all the allegation and charges made against him in his reply dated 06.11.2014 (Annexure-E), pointed out the fact that there were discrepancies in the date of the occurrence of the alleged offence between the one that was given in the FIR and with the statement of the victim girl before the Magistrate concerned besides there being a delay in lodging the FIR. According to the petitioner, similar discrepancy occurred on the date in which the victim girl tried to commit suicide. According to the petitioner, similar discrepancy occurred on the date in which the victim girl tried to commit suicide. He also stated that since a criminal case was pending before the learned Trial Court on the same charge, a parallel proceeding departmentally may not be drawn up against him, since the same would amount to two different trials/proceedings for the same offence. 5. However, the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and ignoring his prayer proceeded with the departmental proceeding and consequently, the Inquiry Officer found the charges of misconduct, gross negligence and involvement in the criminal offence against the petitioner to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. With such finding, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.11.2015 (Annexure-F) asking him to show cause as to why a major penalty should not be inflicted upon him considering the gravity of the charge. Although, the petitioner submitted his reply on 26.11.2016 (Annexure-G), the Disciplinary Authority vide the impugned order dated 03.12.2015 dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. 6. Mr. S.B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complaint made against the petitioner is totally false and going by the discrepancies as regard the dates on which the alleged offence was said to have been committed and the alleged victim’s attempt to commit suicide. Therefore, the same only goes to show that the allegation is false and baseless. He submits that even the FIR was also lodged after much delay. Although the petitioner denied the allegation and the charge, the authorities proceeded with the departmental proceedings. The learned Trial Court however vide order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure-K) was pleased to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings. He submits that the discharge of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court was on account of the petition submitted by the complainant for withdrawal of the case against the petitioner. The said petition was accompanied by a joint affidavit executed by the complainant and the victim girl on 11.02.2015 which was to the effect that the complainant and the victim girl would not like to proceed with the case any further and an amicable settlement was reached between the parties. 7. The said petition was accompanied by a joint affidavit executed by the complainant and the victim girl on 11.02.2015 which was to the effect that the complainant and the victim girl would not like to proceed with the case any further and an amicable settlement was reached between the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the departmental proceedings drawn up against the petitioner was wholly based on the FIR lodged by the father of the victim girl and the petitioner having been discharged in the criminal proceeding, he should be reinstated in his service with all service benefits. He also submits that since the charge against the petitioner was only based on the FIR which otherwise cannot be considered to be a conclusive evidence and can be used only for corroboration and contradiction. Therefore, the learned Trial Court having discharged the petitioner from such liability, the petitioner cannot be imposed with the penalty of dismissal from the service on the basis of the same charge. 8. He further submits that although the charge under Section 376/506 IPC may not be a compoundable offence but nevertheless, the Court in appropriate cases can always consider the fact situation and the subsequent events including a compromise reached between the parties and interfere favourably in the matter. In this connection he relies upon the decision of this Court in the Case of Jahirul Maulana @ Jahirul Islam (Md.) Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2016(4) GLT 460 in which a decision of the Apex Court ie; Narinder Singh & Othrs Vs. State of Punjan & Another reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 was relied upon. The learned counsel submits that in the said case considering the compromise arrived at by the parties, Court accepted the prayer of the petitioner therein to quash the charge-sheet under section 376/506 IPC which also is the same in the present case. He therefore submits that in the present case as well, since the complainant and the alleged victim filed a joint affidavit that they would not like to press the case and withdraw the same in view of the parties having come to a compromise, the learned Trial Court discharged the petitioner from the criminal proceeding. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.12.2015, dismissing the petitioner from service should also be set aside. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.12.2015, dismissing the petitioner from service should also be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents, it is their case that had they been informed about the joint-affidavit submitted by the complainant and the victim girl before the learned Trial Court, the question of issuing a second show-cause to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority would not have arisen. This according to the petitioner clearly shows that the department has in fact accepted the compromise reached between the parties and the order of discharge by the Trial Court. The charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding being based on the FIR and identical to the criminal proceeding, the petitioner should be reinstated in to service. 10. Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for the State respondents relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 16.03.2017, submits that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in a disciplined force. In fact, the petitioner after joining the Assam Police on 17.03.1994 has been given a number of punishments during his service for his in-disciplined conduct including over-staying his leave period. 11. Now with the complaint that has been made against him and for which a departmental proceeding was drawn up, the same would only go to show that the inquiry officer during the departmental proceeding found the charges of gross misconduct, negligence and his involvement in the criminal offence to be well founded and proved beyond reasonable doubt and in order to discard undisciplined police personnel, an exemplary punishment was rendered against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the disciplinary proceeding records produced by the learned State Counsel. 13. The undisputed fact in the instant case is that a disciplinary proceeding was drawn against the petitioner by serving him a show-cause notice on 18.10.2014 on the charge that an FIR was submitted against him for alleged commission of rape upon one Smt. Roma Banik and pursuant to which a criminal case No.30 of 2014 under Section 376/506 IPC was registered as well. It is also not in dispute that although charge-sheet was submitted by the police, but, due to the petition filed by the complainant for withdrawal of the case pursuant to an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the joint affidavit executed by the complainant and the victim girl, the learned Trial Court discharged the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2016 from the proceeding. 14. What is important to note herein is that the charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding as well as before the learned Trial Court were identical. It was only because of the complaint submitted in the form of an FIR that the departmental authority initiated the departmental proceeding. Law is well settled as regard parallel proceedings that the same is permissible, but however, in a given case when the charge(s) in the departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal proceeding are one and the same, the question of imposing a penalty on the delinquent employee while being discharged/acquitted by a criminal court would not be permissible. The Hon’bel Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 has held that when the criminal and departmental proceedings are based on identical set of facts, dismissal from service while being acquitted by the criminal court would not be fair and therefore, the reinstatement of the delinquent employee was directed. The aforesaid ration was also followed by the Apex Court in the case of G.M Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 . 15. It may also be noticed that the respondent No.6 has also taken a stand in their affidavit-in-opposition that when the second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, the fact of there being a compromise between the parties and swearing of a joint affidavit was not brought to the knowledge of the departmental authorities and therefore, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. What can only be understood from such stand is that if the department was informed about the settlement/compromise, the outcome departmentally could have been different. What can only be understood from such stand is that if the department was informed about the settlement/compromise, the outcome departmentally could have been different. It may also be noted herein that the misconduct said to have been conducted by the petitioner on earlier occasions cannot be a ground for imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, the same are not a part of charges against the petitioner in the instant case as can be appreciated from the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2014 and moreover for such misconduct, the petitioner had already been penalized. 16. True as it is that members of a disciplined force are to maintain strict and utmost discipline in service more than those in other public service but the fact remains that even those serving in a disciplined force are required to be proceeded with as per the Constitutional scheme and relevant provisions of law. In the instant case as can be observed, the charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings as well as before the criminal Trial Court were one and same and the outcome of the criminal complaint (FIR). Such being the position, in my considered opinion the impugned order of removal dated 03.12.2015 cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. It is needless to mention herein that the inquiry report dated 28.10.2014 is also set aside and quashed. 17. The respondent now shall reinstate the petitioner back into service immediately. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been out of service for awhile without work, payment of 50% of his back wages by the respondents minus the subsistence allowance already given to him is found to be appropriate. 18. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.