JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State of Assam and their officers (respondent Nos.1 & 2) are represented by Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and the respondent No.4 are represented by Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel for the BTC. 2. While serving as the Assistant Conservator of Forest and in-charge of the Kachugaon Forest Division, a Disciplinary Proceeding (D.P.) was initiated against the officer under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Discipline Rules’), with the show cause notice dated 28.1.2002. It was alleged therein that the petitioner while in charge of the Kachugaon Forest Division from 17.8.1999—20.1.2000, had allowed illegal transportation of huge quantities of uninventorised timber from Sapatgram, in contravention of the applicable norms. Allegation of facilitating lifting of timber on bogus documents by a timber merchant was also levelled, against the Forest Officer. Through such irregularities and negligence, it was alleged that the Forest Officer caused a loss of at least Rs.40.62 lakhs royalty + taxes, to the Government coffer. 3. Following the above allegations, a preliminary inquiry was made and the Conservator of Forest, Eastern Assam Circle, Jorhat gave his finding dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure-3) on the allegations, leveled against the Forest officer. 4. The dropping of the D.P. is sought in the present case, on the basis of the Clause 12.2 (page-41) of the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS), dated 10.2.2003 (Annexure-4) and Clause (3)(1) of the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003 (Annexure-5), issued by the Department of Personnel (B), where-under, the cases connected with the Bodo Agitation, are required to be dropped/reviewed. 5. The relevant clauses of MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003, are extracted here-in-below for ready reference:- “……………………………. 12.2 The Government of India will initiate steps for review of action against the Bodo employees of Government of India and subordinate offices as well as in respect of Central Government Undertakings. Similar action would be taken by the Government of Assam. ………………………..”. “………………………. O.M. dated 17.3.2003, are extracted here-in-below for ready reference:- “……………………………. 12.2 The Government of India will initiate steps for review of action against the Bodo employees of Government of India and subordinate offices as well as in respect of Central Government Undertakings. Similar action would be taken by the Government of Assam. ………………………..”. “………………………. (3)(1) All Departmental proceedings including those for indulging in acts of criminal nature which are pending for want of substantial evidence in support thereof shall be dropped forthwith and the period of suspension, if any, treated as on duty for all purposes inclusive of pay and allowances, leave, increment, pension, eligibility for promotion, etc. ……………………………”. 6.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned timbers were from trees on patta land and that is why the movement of those timpbers were permitted by the subordinate Forest Officials, which however was endorsed by the petitioner, when he was in-charge of the Kachugaon Forest Division. He further submits that this happened during the surcharged days of the Bodo Agitation. 6.2. The petitioner also contends that he is entitled to review of the decision on the D.P. under the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003. 7. On the other hand, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Government on 24.8.2010, to contend that the allegations in the D.P. against the Forest Officer, are not covered under Clause 12.2 (page-41) of the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 (Annexure-4) or Clause (3)(1) of the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003 (Annexure-5) and therefore it is argued that since the allegations have no connection with the Bodo Agitation, the D.P. cannot be dropped and must be taken to its logical conclusion. 8. On behalf of the BTC authorities, Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel refers to the BTC’s communication dated 14.3.2011, to submit that the Assam Government had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the concerned allegations and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were to be considered by the Vigilence Cell of the Assam Government. But the view of the Government is that a proper inquiry is required to be conducted on the allegations. 9. The above submissions by the parties reflect that the D.P. has not been finalized for last about 15 years and in the meantime, the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.10.2011. But the view of the Government is that a proper inquiry is required to be conducted on the allegations. 9. The above submissions by the parties reflect that the D.P. has not been finalized for last about 15 years and in the meantime, the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.10.2011. According to his lawyer, only provisional pension without gratuity and other pensinary dues, is being received by the retiree, on account of the non-finality of the D.P. 10. The long pendency of the D.P. has certainly caused great prejudice to the Forest Officer but since the delinquent himself applied for dropping of the D.P., under the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003 (Annexure-5), the pendency of his case in the High Court, could be one of the factor for the non-finalization of the D.P. What is however significant here is that after the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 28.1.2002 (Annexure-2), formal departmental inquiry was not started in accordance with the Discipline Rules. Moreover the learned counsel says that the findings of the preliminary inquiry have also not been furnished, to the delinquent. 11. The review and dropping of disciplinary action against the Bodo employees was proposed by the Government under the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003 only for such incidents connected with the Bodo Agitation. Hence those proceedings which are unrelated with the Bodo Agitation should not, in my view, be dropped, under the Government policy notified in the context of the local scenario. Therefore, the plea of the Forest Officer for dropping of the D.P. which is not related to the Bodo Agitation are not found warranted, under the Clause 12.2 (page-41) of the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and Clause (3)(1) of the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003. 12. Having reached the above conclusion, the Court cannot ignore that the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2011 and is yet to receive his actual retirement dues. There could be other service claims also, such as confirmation of service and higher salary benefit, etc. All these things have remained inconclusive for last 15 years and the D.P. must be the key reason for the present predicaments. 13. There could be other service claims also, such as confirmation of service and higher salary benefit, etc. All these things have remained inconclusive for last 15 years and the D.P. must be the key reason for the present predicaments. 13. As can be seen from the letter dated 14.3.2011 of the Chief Conservator of Forest, BTC, the Vigilance Cell of the Assam Government was to take a decision on conducting of a departmental inquiry, in pursuant to the findings of the preliminary inquiry. In fact, the BTC authorities have expressed their view under their letter dated 18.3.2011, that the case should be reviewed under the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and the Govt. O.M., dated 17.3.2003. But on this aspect, the Court’s view is incorporated already, in paragraph 11, as above. 14. Interestingly, the petitioner against his Right to Information application was informed on 5.12.2012, that records pertaining to the disciplinary action is not available in the Department of Environment & Forest, which is the Administrative Department of the petitioner. 15. Taking all the above circumstances into account, while declaring that the disciplinary action against the forest officer cannot be dropped under Clause 12.2 of the MOS, dated 10.2.2003 and Clause (3)(1) of the Govt. O.M. dated 17.3.2003, the expeditious conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding is directed, to prevent further hardship of the retired officer. Since the authority of the Assam Government is the disciplinary authority for the Forest Officer, they are directed to quickly decide whether they wish to proceed with the D.P. in pursuant to the preliminary inquiry report, forwarded for consideration of the Vigilance Cell. If a decision is taken to conduct the D.P., the matter be processed and concluded expeditiously within four months, from the date of receipt of this order. It is ordered accordingly. If the respondents decide to close the matter at this stage or there is exoneration of the petitioner in the D.P., steps be taken in either situation for quick release of the retirement dues and other service benefits. Directions in these terms are accordingly issued. 16. With the above order, the case stands disposed of, without any order on cost. The copy of this order be furnished to Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate and the learned standing counsel for the BTC, Ms. B. Bhuyan, for onward communication.