JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner falls within a short compass. The petitioner was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceeding by the order under No.F.1 (2350)ESSTT/PR/87/377679 dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure3 to the writ petition) and later on, but by the order under No. F.1 (2350)ESSTT/PR/87/(VollII)/2464548 dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the said suspension order was revoked with immediate effect. 3. The petitioner has alleged in this writ petition that even though he has been regularly attending the duties and since January, 2017 have not been paid his salaries. That apart, the Hrishymukh Gram Panchayet where he is posted as the Panchayet Secretary has been resisting him from putting his signature on the attending register. 4. The petitioner has reported the matter to the higher authorities, even to the other Panchayet Secretary who is working in the same Gram Panchayet, namely, Hrishymukh Gram Panchayet by a letter (Annexure13 to the writ petition). 5. The petitioner has further asserted that he had made a complaint to the Block Development Officer, the B.D.O. for short, Hrishymukh R.D. Block on 14.07.2016 (Annexure7 to the writ petition) and made request for releasing payment for the period when his salaries were not paid and also to continue to pay salary regularly. It has been averred that further request was made to the B.D.O. Hrishymukh, to direct the other Panchayet Secretary to allow him put signatures on the attendance register, so that he can record his attendance regularly. 6. Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even thereafter there had been no change in the situation as there was interference from the higher authorities. Being compelled by the circumstances that he has not been getting the salary, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on urging the reliefs viz (a) the respondents be directed to release the salaries of the petitioner payable on 01.02.2015 and also allow him to record his attendance on the attendance register in the office of the Hrishymukh Gram Panchayet by way of putting signatures thereon. 7. The respondents by filing a counter affidavit have disputed the fact that the petitioner was attending his duties regularly. According to them, he was absenting himself un-authorizedly. 7. The respondents by filing a counter affidavit have disputed the fact that the petitioner was attending his duties regularly. According to them, he was absenting himself un-authorizedly. In para 6(c)(iii) the respondents have averred as under: “6(c)(iii) In reply to the statements made in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the WP, it is denied and disputed that the petitioner has been attending his duties and rendering services without any break. It is humbly submitted that after the revocation of the order of suspension, the petitioner joined his services and thereafter, since 19.11.2014, the petitioner has been unauthorizedly absenting himself from his duties and did not rejoin till date. The Panchayet Officer of the Hrishyamukh R.D. Block during his inspection of the GP office on 22.05.2015 and 25.05.2015 found out that the petitioner has been absenting himself from duties for a long time and submitted a report to the respondent No. 3 on 03.06.2015. on being reported by the Panchayet Officer, the respondent No. 3, on 03.06.2015, issued a letter to the Panchayet Secretary of the said Block seeking working report and other details regarding the absence of the petitioner for forwarding the same to the Director, Panchayets, for initiating necessary action. The respondents also crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce the attendance register at the time of hearing of this case to substantiate the contentions of the respondents. A copy of the letters dated 03.06.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure1.” 8. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that since the petitioner was absenting from the duties unauthorizedly, the B.D.O. had issued a show cause notice under No. F.1 (3)BDO/HRM/ESSTT/201415/353(A) dated 23.05.2013 (AnnexureR/2) to the counter affidavit, but the petitioner even did not furnish any reply in compliance of direction of the competent authority. 9. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has succinctly asserted that the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition that he has been attending the duties is absolutely incorrect and the respondents have categorically contested that position. Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has on the face of the stand taken by the respondents further submitted that the respondents have adopted a hostile attitude to the petitioner and this treatment is only the outcome of that hostility. 10. Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has on the face of the stand taken by the respondents further submitted that the respondents have adopted a hostile attitude to the petitioner and this treatment is only the outcome of that hostility. 10. Be that as it may, this Court on the face of the averments in the counter affidavit in respect of his attending duties is not in a position to give any positive direction to the respondents. But on the face of the allegations, to this Court it appears that it is a fit case to direct the respondent No. 2, the Director of Panchayet, Government of Tripura, to make an inquiry into the matter and take appropriate steps. It is ordered accordingly. If it is found that the petitioner was resisted from signing the attendance register but he had been attending the duties, in that case, his pay and allowances including arrears shall be paid within a reasonable time, but if it is found that he was absenting unauthorizedly from the duties, the petitioner shall be given a further chance to give his reply to the said show cause notice (Annexure R/2 to the counter affidavit). 11. The respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to take further action on the basis of the outcome of that inquiry or in view of the reply that is contemplated to be filed by the petitioner. However, this Court would observe that if the petitioner reported the duties, the petitioner shall be allowed to sign the attendance register, without any resistance. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.