WP(C) 5759/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms . R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2005 by which he w as dismissed from service. As reflected in the order, such dismissal from servic e was on account of his conviction in a criminal case, namely Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 72/97 under Section 302 IPC. The impugned order was passed under Section 8 of the Assam Forest Protection Force Act, 1986. After the aforesaid order of dis missal dated 01.02.2005 the conviction and sentence on the basis of which the sa id order was passed, has been set aside and quashed by this Court in Criminal A ppeal No. 237/04 vide its judgment and order dated 27.07.07. The operative part of the judgment and order is quoted below: 16. So from the careful reading of the evidence on record both oral and docu mentary we are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is not at all sustainable and we propose to interference the same and acc ordingly interfered. 17. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is set aside and we record the order of acquittal of the appellant. While parting with the case we are constrained to express our displeasur e in the manner in which investigation was resorted to. Investigation apparently appears to be perfunctory. Appeal is allowed. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the p etitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority no w requires to review the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have referred to the particular departmental proceeding which was drawn against the petitioner in the year 1999. It has been stated that the petitioner was informed by letter d ated 29.09.2000 about the findings of the enquiry officer. According to the sai d affidavit, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice as to why he would not be dismissed from service, but there was no response from him. However, not hing has been stated as to what transpired thereafter. In the affidavit in reply, the petitioner has dealt with the aforesaid p lea of the respondents regarding pendency of the departmental proceeding. It has been stated that the departmental proceeding was initiated on the charge of una uthorised absence from duty. According to the petitioner, same ended in exonerat ion of the petitioner from the charge and he was reinstated in service in the y ear 2001. It is the stand of the petitioner that on the basis of such reinstatem ent in service he continued in service till issuance of the impugned order dated 01.02.2005. It is on the aforesaid background the case of the petitioner is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since he has been acquitted from crimi nal charge which was the foundation of issuance of the impugned order. Ms. R. Ch okraborty, learned State counsel on the other hand submits that mere acquittal f rom the criminal charge will not absolve the petitioner from the liability of th e departmental proceeding. She submits that if the disciplinary authority decide s to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental proceeding, the petit ioner’s reinstatement in service will depend upon the outcome of such proceeding . The petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 01 .02.2005 on the basis of his conviction in the criminal case in question. The sa id order of conviction having been set aside and quashed by the judgment and ord er dated 27.07.07 passed in criminal appeal No. 237/04, a duties enjoined on t he authority who had passed the order dated 01.02.2005 to review the said order inasmuch as the whole basis of the impugned order dated 01.02.05 no longer exist s. No opinion is expressed regarding the submission made by the learned Sta te counsel that the disciplinary authority will be at liberty to initiate depart mental proceeding against the petitioner. On this plea, Mr. Hussain, learned cou nsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted in t he criminal case on the same set of charges, there cannot be any departmental pr oceeding. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the dis ciplinary authority who had passed the order dated 01.02.2005 (Annexure-II) to p ass appropriate order taking into account the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.07.07 passed in criminal appeal No. 237/2004. It is made clear that upon a d ecision to reinstate the petitioner in service, he will not be entitle to bac k wages, but he will be entitled to the notional fixation of pay. This provisio n has been made in view of the fact that the petitioner was involved in a crimin al offence and although he was convicted, he had to be acquitted in view of the perfunctory manner in which the investigation was carried out. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible pref erably within 31.05.2011.