Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 282 (GAU)

Ajay Mimi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2008-04-10

KETULHOU MERUNO

body2008
JUDGMENT K. Meruno, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the petitioner (s) as well as Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. These three Writ Petition Nos. 244 (AP) 2007, 245 (AP) 2007 & 246 (AP) 2007 have been clubbed together as analogous matter in view of the fact that the same cause of action and the same relief is spelt out in the three writ petitions. Therefore, these three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner (s) in all the writ petitions are undergoing training at Banderdewa Police Training Centre (PTC) on 03.10.2003, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one, Kulheswar Saikia, against the petitioner (s) before the Bihpuria Police Station, a Police Case No. 337/2003 was registered against the petitioner (s) and on 04.10.2003, the Principal of the Police Training Centre, Banderdewa, terminated the service of the petitioner (s) vide order dated 04.10.2003. The petitioner, Ajay Mimi, has moved this Court with the WP (C) 529 (AP) 2005, the petitioner, Tako Saki with the WP (C) 103 (AP) 2004 & the petitioner, Jeem Gyadu with the WP (C) No. 104 (AP) 2004 and vide order dated 24.06.2005 passed in WP (C) 103 (AP) 2004 & WP (C) 104 (AP) 2004 and vide order dated 11.11.2005 passed in WP (C) 529 (AP) 2005, the said termination order dated 04.10.2003 against them was quashed and set aside. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were reinstated by an order dated 8th July, 2005 issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police (HQ), Itanagar. Though all the petitioners have been reinstated in service, the service of the petitioners in the intervening period with effect from 04.10.2003 to 14.07.2005 has not been regularized and therefore, all the three writ petitions have been moved by the petitioners individually to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in regard to regularize the intervening period with effect from 04.10.2003 to 14.07.2005. This prayer has been made as provided under the provision of Fundamental Rules 54-A(1). 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. This prayer has been made as provided under the provision of Fundamental Rules 54-A(1). 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. In the said counter, the Respondents have stated that in compliance with the direction of this Court passed in WP (C) 104 (AP) 2005, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, on being reinstated the petitioners in service, the disciplinary authority has ordered the departmental inquiry against them vide order dated PHQ/DP-88/2005 dated 28.12.2005 and one Inspector, M.S. Yadav of 2nd IRBN, Dayun, presently posted as CI (P) Kanubari was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against them. 5. The learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that the said departmental inquiry is in active consideration. The respondents, however, in para 7 of their counter, states that the intervening period from the date of termination i.e. 04.10.2003 to 14.07.2005 with regard to the services of the petitioner(s) has not been regularized in view of the fact that a departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioners on the basis of alleged misconduct and the same is still pending. On completion of the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioners the intervening period as stated above will be regularize as per the rules in force. The learned Sr. Govt. Advocate further submits that till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, the services of the petitioner(s) cannot be regularized. 6. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner (s) has quoted the provision of the Fundamental Rules 54-A(1), the same is reproduced below for better reference : F. R 54-A(1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. 7. From the plain reading of the said F.R. 54-A(1), where it is stated that the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized. 7. From the plain reading of the said F.R. 54-A(1), where it is stated that the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized. Now in this F.R., it is stated that such Government servant is reinstated "without holding any further inquiry", which clearly shows that the Government servant who is reinstated in service without holding any further inquiry, the absence of duty shall be regularized. 8. However, in the present case of the petitioner(s), though the dismissal order has been set aside by this Court and the petitioners were reinstated in service, the departmental proceedings have been initiated against them. Therefore, in my considered opinion of the case of the petitioner will not be covered by the provisions of F.R. 54-A(1) and the case of the petitioners can only be considered after the disciplinary proceedings against them have been concluded. 9. The stand of the Respondents-State is also very clear that the case of the petitioner (s) shall be considered after the disciplinary proceedings are concluded as per Rules. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the writ petitioner(s) to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the matters and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected and dismissed on devoid of merit. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.