Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 207 (MEG)

Duke Hilbert. Ch. Momin v. State of Meghalaya

2014-09-01

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment Sudip Ranjan Sen, J. 1. This instant Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.09.07 as well as order dated 29.09.08 issued by the Director of Fisheries, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The petitioner's case in nut shell is that, "the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being preferred by a petitioner who is aggrieved by the Transfer Order dated 14.09.07 issued by the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner who is an L.D. Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent of Fisheries, Williamnagar despite in a most sincere manner has invited the wrath of his superiors for reasons best known to them and as such, the above said transfer order transferring him to Nongpoh i.e. different districts was issued to him even before he complete 3 years in his present place of posting. However, the incumbent in whose place the petitioner was supposed to join did not leave his place of posting; therefore, the petitioner though released from his post i.e. from Jamge could not join in Nongpoh. In the meantime, a gradation list is published wherein the petitioner is placed below his juniors. Several representations were filed, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed twice to inquire into the matter and to submit the report within a month. But till date no inquiry is conducted, thus the petitioner is left to remain unemployed artificially till date. A Writ petition registered as W.P.(C) (SH) of 2010 was filed earlier but in the course of hearing, a defect in the prayer portion was detected and as such the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh. Hence this instant petition with various prayers." 3. Mr. R Kar, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner joined service in the Office of the Directorate of Fisheries as LDA through DSC and was performing his duties with sincerity and diligently. In spite of his sincerity and diligently in service, he has been transferred from one District to another District which is against the rules and norms. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to join any post nor he has been suspended, as a result, he remained unemployed artificially till date. In spite of his sincerity and diligently in service, he has been transferred from one District to another District which is against the rules and norms. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to join any post nor he has been suspended, as a result, he remained unemployed artificially till date. The learned counsel also contended that, non-functioning of duties by the petitioner during this period is not due to his fault but purely due to the negligence on the part of the respondents and further submitted that, inquiry was ordered but without any result or outcome. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, even if the petitioner had been suspended, he would have been entitled 50% salary and prayed that necessary order may be passed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R Gurung, the learned State counsel appeared along with the Director of Fisheries submitted that, the petitioner was negligence to his duties, hence, he was transferred from one District to another but fairly submitted that no Inquiry was conducted nor any Report placed by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner. The learned State counsel further contended that, the petitioner is not under suspension. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the petition and affidavit-in-opposition, one point is clear to me that the petitioner was a regular employee of the Directorate of Fisheries and he was posted from one place to another. Even if it is due to negligence of duties, the Department concerned should have taken appropriate action against him but it appears that no action has been taken against him except transfer. Besides that, when he did not join his duty beyond the limited period, he should have been placed under suspension and appropriate Inquiry should have been conducted but no action has been taken on the part of the respondents. 7. Further, it is an admitted fact from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner is still in service and without any suspension order. 8. Therefore, in such a peculiar circumstances, the question arises what remedy or relief is available to the petitioner. 7. Further, it is an admitted fact from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner is still in service and without any suspension order. 8. Therefore, in such a peculiar circumstances, the question arises what remedy or relief is available to the petitioner. Since no action has been taken on the part of the respondents, the petitioner should not continue to suffer, hence, I am of the considered view that, the petitioner should be allowed to join his post in any place where the respondents desire and since he is without pay for many months/years, 50% of his salary to be released for those periods absent because even if a person is suspended, he is entitled 50% of his salary. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, I hereby direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to join his duty immediately and 50% of the salary to be release in his favour for the period absent within a period of 3(three) months from the date of this order. 10. It is further ordered that, in the near future his promotion and seniority of the petitioner may be considered as per rules and the petitioner is also directed to perform his duty with sincerity and dedication keeping in mind that he is working for welfare and interest of the public. 11. With these observations and directions, this instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.