MANZOOR AHMED MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Manzoor Ahmed Mazumdar, was employed as Sub Divisional Officer (Mechanical) in the Public Works Department of the government of Assam, He was sent on deputation to the government of Meghalaya. Subsequently on 28/4/1975 his services stood allocated to the government of Meghalaya. By order dated 16/10/1975 he was dismissed from service by invoking the Provisions of clause (b) of the PRoviso to sub article (2 of Article 311 of the Constitution and it was stated that in the public interest it was not reasonably PRacticable to hold an inquiry under Article 311 (2. The said order of dismissal was quashed by the High court by judgment dated 22/4/1981 in a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 347 of 1986 filed by the appellant. Thereafter order dated 12/8/1982 was passed by the government of Meghalaya whereby the matter of pay and allowances payable to the appellant in respect of the period from 16-10-1975 to 13/5/19811 was considered and it was directed that for the period for the first six months from 17/8/1975, the appellant would be entitled to pay as admissible had he been on half pay and allowances based on such leave salary (pay) as admissible under the State government and for the remaining period from 17/2/1976 to 13/5/1981 it was directed that 3/4th of the pay and allowances based on such pay as may be admissible under the State government for the period in question shall be paid to him. It was also directed that the period from 17/8/1975 to 13/5/1981 shall not be treated as a period spent on duty. The appellant submitted a representation against the said order but the same was rejected and thereafter he filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 45 of 1983 in the Gauhati High court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 12/6/1987.

(2.) The only question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether an opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant beforepassing the order dated 12/8/1982 regarding the pay and allowances for the period of suspension (sic absence from duty). From the record it does not appear that such an opportunity was afforded to the appellant. In the impugned judgment of the High court reference has been made to the Provisions of Rule 54 of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules. During the course of his submissions before this court, the learned counsel for the State pointed out that the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules came into force in 1984 and PRior to that the Assam Fundamental Rules which had been adopted in Meghalaya in 1974 had continued to apply. The relevant Provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 in the Assam Fundamental Rules which was applicable during the period 1975 to 1981 areas under:

(3.) These Provisions are similar to those contained in Fundamental Rule 54 which came up for consideration before this court in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of M. P. In that case the court has considered the question whether an opportunity should be afforded to an employee before passing an order under clause (3 read with clause (5 of the said rule and it has been laid down: