WP(C) 3656/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Gho sh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. The two petitioners were convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code by the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No.96 of 1992. On 13th June, 2001 the two petitioner s were asked to show cause as to why they should not be terminated from service with effect from 16.5.2001 on the ground of their conviction in the aforesaid cr iminal case. The petitioners showed cause as directed. Thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed, the effect of which is that the petitioners stood termi nated from service from 16.5.2001 i.e. the date of their conviction. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. The two petitioners aggrieved by their conviction and the consequential sentence imposed had preferred Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001. The said appeal had been disposed of by this Court on 22.3.2006 by maintaining the conviction though the sentence imposed had been reduced. Under clause (a) to the second proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution of Ind ia in cases where termination is on the ground of conviction in a criminal case the requirement of holding an enquiry has been dispensed with. Same is the provi sion contained in Rule 10 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 196 4 which dispenses with the requirement of holding enquiry under Rule 9. In such a situation the sole argument advanced i.e. that there was no enquiry prior to t he termination of the petitioners is not tenable in law. The writ petition, therefore, fails. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.