Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 918 (GAU)

Dinaram Bora v. State of Assam

2017-07-14

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. D. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned State counsel. 2. The respondent No.5, as per the Office Note is represented by Ms. S Bora and Ms. M. Bhuyan by filling the respective Vakalatnama along with their learned Senior counsel. It is stated that the learned Senior counsel is no more. Therefore, on record, it would be Ms. S. Bora and Ms. M. Bhuyan who would represent the respondent No.5. However, none appears for the respondent No.5, when the matter is called upon. 3. It is stated that the respondent No.5 is a member of the public of Gohaingaon village in the district of Golaghat and at the instance of the said respondent No.5, certain complaints were lodged against the present petitioner, who is a Gaonburah, resulting in the impugned termination order against the Gaonburah. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed, this Court deems it appropriate that the said respondent No.5 in any view of the matter, need not be heard for the present. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Gaonburah of Gohaingaon village as per the order dated 13.09.2005 of the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat. It is the case of the petitioner that although the petitioner was discharging his duties as Gaonburah with honesty and sincerity by implementing various welfare schemes of the Government, but certain individuals of the village who had the intention of misappropriating the Government funds were dissatisfied, and, accordingly, had lodged a complaint against the petitioner. 6. On the basis of such complaint, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension. Thereafter, by the order dated 19.07.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat had constituted an enquiry committee to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. It is stated that neither the petitioner was allowed to participate in the said enquiry nor the petitioner was provided with any report of such enquiry. 7. It is also stated that subsequently, the petitioner came to learn from the Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle that a group of less than 10% of the population of the villagers led by respondent No.5 had filed a complaint against the petitioner for some other vested interest. 8. 7. It is also stated that subsequently, the petitioner came to learn from the Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle that a group of less than 10% of the population of the villagers led by respondent No.5 had filed a complaint against the petitioner for some other vested interest. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 24.04.2012 had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat by which the services of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect based upon the public complaint raised by respondent No.5, Sri Mineswar Bora and 134 other persons and also on the basis of the same report of the Circle Officer dated 20.12.2012. 9. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in paragraph 8, it has been stated that after the suspension of the petitioner as the Gaonburah, departmental proceeding was initiated by the order No.GRC.6/2011/56 dated 24.04.2012 by filing proper norms of departmental proceeding. 10. It is further noticed that the order of termination is also dated 24.04.2012. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion that the writ petitioner was terminated from services without conducting any proper departmental proceeding against him, inasmuch as, the date of order of termination and the date of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding i.e., 24.04.2012 are one and the same. 12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order of termination dated 24.04.2012 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. However, as the departmental proceeding is said to have been initiated by the order dated 24.04.2012, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to bring the said proceeding to its logical end. However, it is provided that while bringing the same to its logical end, the respondent authorities would strictly follow the proper departmental norms and procedure and the same cannot be made in a truncated manner. 13. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.