JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Health Engineering Department. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to release his current salary as well as the arrear salaries at the revised rates being recommended by the Pay Commissions and given to all the employees of the State and regularisation of his leave period under the relevant provisions of the State Leave Rules and Fundamental Rules. The petitioner has also sought for a direction for his promotion from the post of Sub-Engineer Grade-II to the post of Sub-Engineer Grade-I w.e.f. the date his junior has been promoted. The petitioner has also sought for adequate compensation on account of losing his right eye vision completely due to the negligence of the respondent authorities. It is may be noticed herein that the petitioner is currently holding the post of Sub-Engineer of Grade-II in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering , Guwahati Division No.2. 3. In response to the writ petition, the respondent PHE Department filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 3.8.2016 and thereafter the petitioner filed his re-joinder affidavit on 17.2.2017. 4. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. S Sharma, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not received his salary since the month of March, 2008 till date. He submits that although the petitioner submitted leave applications from time to time for his medical treatment, the respondents have failed to regularize his leave period and as a result, he has been denied his salary. The learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner joined his post after his medical treatment, respondent authorities still continued to mark him as ‘absent from duty. Therefore grave injustice has been caused to the writ petitioner. He therefore submits that the respondent authorities should be directed to regularize his leave period and pay him his due salaries both current and arrear along with all other reliefs that he has prayed in his writ petition. 5. Appearing for the respondent, PHE Department, the learned Standing Counsel Mr. PN Goswami submits that the petitioner has been most irregular in performing his duty in the department. 5. Appearing for the respondent, PHE Department, the learned Standing Counsel Mr. PN Goswami submits that the petitioner has been most irregular in performing his duty in the department. The petitioner is in the habit of taking leave by submitting applications and he used to proceed on leave even before permission is granted by the respondent authorities. Time and again, the petitioner was duly informed and warned that if he continued to repeat such irregularities, disciplinary action would be taken against him. However, despite such warnings, the petitioner continued to remain off and on from his duty without proper authorisation. Consequently, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 14.8.2009 (Annexure-61) whereby charges were drawn up against him for specific period in which he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. The show cause notice was issued under Rule 9 of the Assam Civil Services (Disciplines and Appeals) Rules, 1964 read with Section 311 of the Constitution of India requiring him to show cause within 10 days as to why any of the penalty under Rule 7 of the Rules should not be inflicted upon him. Along with the show cause notice, the statements of allegations, list of witnesses and documents were also enclosed. The petitioner was given 7 days’ time to inspect the documents which were proposed to be examined during the enquiry. Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel submits that pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 13.11.2009 (Annexure-71). Since the petitioner was not placed under suspension, petitioner was required to continue attending the office to perform his duty but however since the petitioner refrained from attending the office, explanation for unauthorized absent from duty was issued to him on 23.11.2011 (Annexure-76) and to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.12.2011 (Annexure-74). He submits that on several occasions, dates were given for conducting hearing in the departmental enquiry, but, however the petitioner invariably for one pretext or the other, failed to participate and appear in the date fixed. He further submits that although petitioner submitted his report for duty on 6.6.2014 and 19.6.2014, the petitioner did not actually join his post for duty and continued to remain absent. He further submits that although petitioner submitted his report for duty on 6.6.2014 and 19.6.2014, the petitioner did not actually join his post for duty and continued to remain absent. The learned counsel further submits that while his department was contemplating finalization of the enquiry process, the petitioner in spite of cooperating with the enquiry process approached this Court through the instant writ petition and therefore, the enquiry proceeding could not be finalised. 6. Mr. S Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner’s absence is duly justified by medical examination report as well as explanation which was submitted to the authorities concerned. Despite the petitioner having submitted his joining report, the respondent authorities have failed to acknowledge the same and have been always marking him ‘absent’. Therefore, in such situation, there is no action for the petitioner to join his post and resume his duty while at the same time his salaries have been withheld from him. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials available on record. Granting the prayer of the writ petitioner in the given circumstance would amount to allowing the writ petition without there being any conclusion in the departmental proceedings initiated by the department as may be noticed herein above. The various documents referred to by the writ petitioner and the documents relied upon by the respondents would require meticulous examination which in my considered opinion can only be exercised in a proper departmental enquiry. In that view of the matter instead of dwelling upon the various documents presented before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The respondent Department will proceed with the enquiry proceedings from the stage of the show cause notice dated 14.8.2009 issued to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner shall submit his reply to the same afresh in terms of the notice within 10 days and the petitioner shall also be permitted to examine and inspect all documents proposed to be relied upon in the enquiry proceedings. (ii) The petitioner shall join his post immediately and the respondent authorities shall examine the admitted dues pending against his salary. He shall be entitled to his salary otherwise from the date of his joining to his post. (ii) The petitioner shall join his post immediately and the respondent authorities shall examine the admitted dues pending against his salary. He shall be entitled to his salary otherwise from the date of his joining to his post. (iii) Considering the fact that the petitioner is due to superannuate in the month of December, 2017, the Departmental authorities shall conduct the enquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible and within the outer limit of 3 months. (iv) The enquiry proceedings shall commence immediately from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also hereby provided that the petitioner will be allowed to put his signature in attendance register and he in turn shall give full co-operation in the enquiry proceedings. 8. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.