LIODREKSHON NONGSIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's case in a nut shell is: - -

(2.) MR . P Dey, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was attending his duty regularly and catering services to the student community but for reasons best known to the respondents all of a sudden a paper publication was made that he abandoned his service. Therefore, petitioner approached this court by way of a writ petition bearing No. 277 (SH) 2010, and, the Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner with effect from the month of June 2008 onwards within a period of two months. The Court also asked the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner for his removal from the post of Assistant teacher from the school in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, petitioner received the salary till 2010. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never abandoned his service and that is why the respondents had to pay his salary till 2010. Learned counsel also contended that without any departmental proceeding the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated, so necessary order may be passed to reinstate him with full benefits.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels at the Bar, and after going through the petition and specifically the Inquiry Report, it is amply clear that the petitioner had served the school till 2004 and thereafter he remained absent. It is also mentioned in the conclusion of the Inquiry Report that the documents which petitioner furnished before the Inquiry Officer pertaining to his attendance w.e.f. 1.6.2008 are found to be false.