Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 560 (GAU)

Md. Farid Ullah Ali v. State of Assam

2013-08-13

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2013
JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. This is a classic instance of an arbitrary exercise of power by a public Official. 'The king can do no wrong', appears to be attitude of the respondent No. 7. The petitioner at the material time was serving as Range Officer at Ranjuli Range under Goalpara Forest Division. It would appear that on 21.6.2005, the respondent No. 7 who is the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division had visited the Range Office of the petitioner and alleged that the petitioner was found absent from his headquarter. According to the respondent No. 7, as per the statement of the staff of the Range, the petitioner left his headquarter on and of without submitting any leave application or without obtaining any prior permission from the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7, therefore, deducted his salary for the period of his absence on the principle of 'no work no pay' as per rule 17(1) of Fundamental Rules. The respondent No. 7 also asked the petitioner to explain as to why he remained absent from his headquarter without authority and asked him to submit his reply within 3 (three) days. The petitioner by his letter dated 28.6.2005 at Annexure-G submitted his reply and gave his explanation. However, apart from withholding 1 (one) day's salary of the petitioner, respondent No. 7 also refused to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of June, 2005 together with the due increment. Mr. A. Alom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing impugned action of the respondent No. 7, submits that the respondent No. 7 in denying the salary of the petitioner has acted arbitrarily and without authority of law. Even if the petitioner could be charged with unauthorized absence from office, argued the learned counsel, no penalty of the like nature imposed herein can be lawfully imposed upon the petitioner without holding an enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the impugned action of the respondent No. 7 has no legs to stand upon and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Mr. Nur Mohammad learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, however, supports the impugned action and submits that no interference is called for. 2. I have carefully perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7 and examination thereof does not disclose any material warranting the withholding of the salary of the petitioner. Mr. Nur Mohammad learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, however, supports the impugned action and submits that no interference is called for. 2. I have carefully perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7 and examination thereof does not disclose any material warranting the withholding of the salary of the petitioner. I have pointedly asked learned State counsel to show me from the affidavit of the respondent No. 7 any lawful jurisdiction for withholding the salary of the petitioner. Article 300-A of the Constitution guarantees that no persons shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law. Salary payable to the petitioner is certainly a property within the meaning of the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of any lawful justification, the respondent No. 7 cannot deny the petitioner of his salary. This calls for the interference of this Court. In the result, this writ petition succeeds. Respondent No. 7 is therefore directed to release the monthly salary of the petitioner for the month of June, 2005 together with the increment due w.e.f. 1.5.2004 to 30.6.2005 within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order. Petition allowed