Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 708 (GAU)

Lalatendu Sahu v. State of Assam

2018-04-26

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel represents respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. At the outset it is placed on record that the petitioner confines his prayer only to the legality and validity of the Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2015 and for no other reliefs. 3. Brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner retired as the Principal of Kampur College, Nagaon on 30.06.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to his retirement, the Governing Body of the College contemplated to take action against the petitioner as he remained absent from duty since 17.04.2005. In this respect, the Governing Body had taken Resolution dated 11.04.2012, followed by Public Notice dated 26.07.2012 in the newspaper. Petitioner was asked to resume duty, making it clear that failure thereof, disciplinary action will be taken as per Rules. It appears that although another Resolution was taken by the Governing Body in its meeting dated 09.10.2012 to remove the petitioner from service, however, the same was withdrawn vide Resolution No. 1 adopted in the meeting of the Governing Body dated 29.05.2015. The same was withdrawn in view of the fact that proceedings for removal from service can only be initiated by following the procedure laid down under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 29.05.2015 had also adopted Resolution No. 2 for placing the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings. 4. There is nothing on record to show that any order had been passed placing the petitioner under suspension and/or any Show Cause Notice followed by any statement of allegations for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner prior to his retirement on 30.06.2015. As indicated above, Show Cause Notice was issued after about 4 months from the date when the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 5. Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 categorically provides that if disciplinary proceeding is not instituted while the Officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, no such disciplinary proceeding can be instituted, save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam. 5. Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 categorically provides that if disciplinary proceeding is not instituted while the Officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, no such disciplinary proceeding can be instituted, save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam. For the purpose of proceeding against the petitioner after his retirement on 30.06.2015 there is no record to show any order in terms of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 was passed. 6. In any view of the matter, the petitioner was not proceeded departmentally prior to his retirement from service. As such, the Show Cause Notice issued to him on 13.11.2015 asking him to show cause as to why penalties prescribed under Rule 7 under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 should not be imposed upon him, is clearly without jurisdiction. The petitioner could not have been served with the Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2015 after he superannuated from service on 30.06.2015 and without there being any order in terms of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 7. In view of the above, I allow this writ petition only to the extent of interfering with the Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2015. Ordered accordingly.