JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the writ appellants. Also heard Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the respondents before the learned Single Judge, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.2179/2019 (Kushal Das -Vs- The State of Assam & 3 Ors.), by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner (private respondent No.1 before this Court) and has directed for his reinstatement in service. 3. The brief background of the case is as follows. The writ petitioner/private respondent No.1 was appointed as LDA-cum-Typist in the Board of Secondary Education (SEBA), Assam on 12.05.1998. While in service, his marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2008 but after four months of the marriage, his wife allegedly committed suicide on 18.09.2008. Thereafter, accusing the writ petitioner and his family members, an FIR was filed by the father of the deceased before the Noonmati Police Station, which was registered as Noonmati Police Station Case No.298/2008, inter alia, under Section 304B IPC, i.e. dowry death, read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.266(K)/2009 convicted the writ petitioner under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Meanwhile, as the FIR was filed and the writ petitioner was under arrest, he was suspended from service vide order dated 24.09.2008, although no departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He remained suspended during all this period and after he was convicted by the trial Court, the Department terminated his services on 23.11.2012. In the meantime, the writ petitioner filed an appeal being Crl. Appeal No.222/2012 against his conviction before this Court and this Court ultimately acquitted him vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2018. The learned Judge after appreciating the entire evidences of the prosecution and the forensic and other evidences came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide by hanging. There were no injuries on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark which also suggested that it is a case of hanging. The learned Judge after appreciating the entire evidences of the prosecution and the forensic and other evidences came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide by hanging. There were no injuries on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark which also suggested that it is a case of hanging. Further, the cruelty, demand of dowry, torture, etc., has not been proved by the prosecution and consequently the learned Judge came to the conclusion, which is recorded in Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018, which read as under:- “32. Thus, all these facts and circumstances speaks loud and clear that prosecution has failed to establish the factum of the victim being subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of any dowry. The testimony of PW 8, being a close neighbor, that he never came across any quarrel between the victim and her husband during the short span of their conjugal life and the testimony of PW 4 that relationship between the victim and the husband was cordial, further create doubt about the prosecution case with regard to the victim being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused/appellants. 33. In order to convict a person for a serious criminal offence like dowry death, prosecution is obliged to proved beyond reasonable doubt of each and every element and ingredient constituting the offence. Even if any of the essential ingredient is found absent, the offence cannot be held to be completed and the accused cannot be convicted in absence of proving all the essential ingredients constituting the offence. In the instant case, although prosecution has been able to prove, that the death of the victim occurred within 7 years of marriage, prosecution evidence is found to be grossly inadequate to establish the other vital ingredients to attract section 304-B IPC, namely, the harassment and cruelty meted out to the victim for demand of dowry soon before the death, and as such, the conviction and sentence of the accused/ appellants, cannot be maintained. 34. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants is set aside. Bail bond if any stands discharged.” 4. Consequent to his acquittal, the writ petitioner moved a representation before the authority for his reinstatement in service on 28.02.2018. 34. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants is set aside. Bail bond if any stands discharged.” 4. Consequent to his acquittal, the writ petitioner moved a representation before the authority for his reinstatement in service on 28.02.2018. His representation was dismissed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Assam on 14.05.2018 stating as under:- “You were put under suspension vide this office Order No.SEBA/EST/17/98/2702-29-26 dated 24/9/08 under Rule 6(2), clause 2.2.1 of the Departmental Proceedings while you were arrested and forwarded to judicial custody in case No.298/08 u/s 304(b)/34 of IPC. Meanwhile a criminal case in the Sessions Judge Guwahati was registered being Session Case No.266(K)/2009 and the said case was adjudicated and vide judgment dated 26/09/2012, you were convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment. On being convicted, you were terminated from the service vide this office letter No.SEBA/EST/17/98/2975-3000 dated 23/11/12 under Rule 3.11 of the Departmental Proceedings. As you submitted the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dated 11/01/18 in Criminal Appeal No.222/2012, it is seen that though the conviction is set aside, the appellant has not been acquitted honourably rather with a benefit of doubt. Acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically entitle accused for re-instatement. From suspension w.e.f. 24/09/08 to 22/121/12 and termination w.e.f. 23/11/12 onwards, the petitioner was in police custody for four years and in imprisonment for long 5½ years, which reflects that the petitioner could not maintain a good moral character and was defamed himself to lower his social status and proved himself unfit for a public service. Under this situation prayer for the reinstatement in service made by the petitioner, Sri Kushal Das, Ex-LDA cum typist cannot be considered and accordingly disposed of.” 5. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge of this Court. His writ petition was allowed and his reinstatement has been ordered, as we have already referred above. 6. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the service regulations nowhere provide that where the services of a person has been terminated because of his conviction in a criminal case and subsequently he is acquitted by the Court, he is automatically liable to be reinstated in service. Furthermore, he would also argue that the writ petitioner was working as LDA-cum-Typist and presently there is no such post lying vacant in the Office. 7. Furthermore, he would also argue that the writ petitioner was working as LDA-cum-Typist and presently there is no such post lying vacant in the Office. 7. The Board of Secondary Education, Assam was created under Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961 and under the same Act, regulations have also been framed. Regulation 12 of Part II(C) of the Service Regulations of the Board, 2016 state as under:- “(12) Service conduct Rules: For any disciplinary action, the Service Conduct Rules and the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 shall be applicable for the officers/employees of the Board.” Regulation 14 of Part II(C) of the Service Regulations of the Board, 2016 state as under:- “(14) Conduct Rules: The Government Servant Conduct Rules, The Assam Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964 as amended from time to time shall be applicable for all the Officers and Employees of the Board.” 8. Under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the procedure is given as to how a major penalty is to be imposed. Under Rule 10, special procedure is given in special cases where a Departmental Enquiry is not required before terminating the services of an employee. Rule 10 reads as follows:- “10. Special procedure in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 - (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said; or (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the state, it is not expedient to follow such procedure, - the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit : Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary.” 9. Vide order dated 23.11.2012, the services of the writ petitioner were terminated. Vide order dated 23.11.2012, the services of the writ petitioner were terminated. The said order reads as under:- “Speaking Order Sri Kushal Das, S/o Ratneswar Das a resident of Noonmati, Guwahati-20, who was appointed as LDA in the Board of Secondary Education, Assam vide order No.SEBA/EST/728-44 dated 12-05-1998 had been placed under suspension with effect from 19-09-2008 vide this office order No.SEBA/EST/17/98/2702-2726 dated 24-09-2008 due to his arrest by Noonmati Police Station in Noonmati P.S. Case No.298/08 U/S 304(B)/34 of IPC. He was sent to Judicial custody. He was allowed subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules during his suspension period. On 12-10-2012 the Board received a judgment passed by the Honourable Session Court, Guwahati in case No.266(K) of 2009 on 26-09-201. Vide this judgment Sri Kushal Das has been convicted and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for his alleged involvement in the aforementioned case. Under the facts and circumstance the service of Sri Kushal Das is deem to have been terminated w.e.f. 26-09-2012.” In other words, the services of the writ petitioner were terminated under the aforesaid Special Provision contained in Rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, although the same is not reflected in the termination order. 10. The admitted position is that the writ petitioner never faced any departmental proceeding prior to his termination from service and his termination was solely based on the reason that he has been convicted by the Court on criminal charges. 11. We are of a considered view, and as has already been held by the learned Single Judge that when the writ petitioner is finally acquitted by the High Court and the reading of the order dated 11.01.2018, by which he was acquitted, nowhere suggests that it is being done as a benefit of doubt or that it is not a clean acquittal, then under these circumstances the natural consequences should have been reinstatement in service of the writ petitioner. 12. 12. In Nar Singh Pal -Vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 , a judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge, it has been stated that where the services of an employee has been terminated only for the simple reason of his involvement in a criminal case and when ultimately he is acquitted and it is a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to him goes away and, therefore, he is liable to be reinstated in service. The Apex Court in Paragraph 12 had held as under:- “12. The fact that the appellant was involved in a criminal case is not disputed by the appellant. What is contended by him is that he was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and, therefore, involvement of the appellant in a criminal case could not have been made the basis for terminating his services. Since the appellant was acquitted, and it was a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to him of having been prosecuted in a criminal case should have been treated to have disappeared and no argument can be allowed to be raised for justifying the order of dismissal on the ground of the appellant’s involvement in a criminal case.” 13. In S. Bhaskar Reddy & Anr. -Vs- Superintendent of Police & Anr., reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 , the facts are that the appellants were appointed in the Armed Reserve Constable by the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. While in service they were implicated in a murder case. Meanwhile, a disciplinary proceeding was also instituted against the appellants and finally they were dismissed from service. Their petition for reinstatement was dismissed both by the Tribunal and the High Court. Their case before the Apex Court was that both the High Court and the Tribunal had overlooked the fact that they were honourably acquitted by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.326/2005 vide judgment dated 25.06.2007. On these, the Apex Court in Paragraphs 25 and 26 stated as under:- “25. The High Court has not considered and examined this legal aspect of the matter while setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also not considered the same. On these, the Apex Court in Paragraphs 25 and 26 stated as under:- “25. The High Court has not considered and examined this legal aspect of the matter while setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also not considered the same. We have examined this important factual and legal aspect of the case which was brought to our notice in these proceedings and we hold that both the High Court and Tribunal have erred in not considering this important undisputed fact regarding honourable acquittal of the appellants on the charges in the criminal case which are similar in the disciplinary proceedings. 26. We have answered the alternative legal contention urged on behalf of the appellants by accepting the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, in which case they have been acquitted honourably from the charges which are more or less similar to the charges levelled against the appellants in the disciplinary proceedings by applying the decisions of this Court referred to supra. Therefore, we have to set aside the orders of dismissal passed against the appellants by accepting the alternative legal plea as urged above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 14. In this case, the facts are even better as admittedly there was no departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner/private respondent No.1. The only ground for his dismissal from service was taken under the Special Provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Rules that he has been convicted by a trial Court. This fact no more exists now as he has been acquitted of all these charges. Therefore, the natural consequences would be his reinstatement in service. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge on this aspect and dismiss the appeal.