SAFIQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application seeks to challenge the legality and validity of a. departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by a show cause notice dated 30.10.91. The validity of a subsequent order directing a de novo enquiry in respect of the: said charges as well as the entitlement of the: petitioner to the grant of retirement benefits have also been sought to be raised in the instant writ application.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy that has arisen in the instant case it may be necessary to briefly set out hereunder the relevant facts.

(3.) By an order dated9.3.91 the petitioner, who at the relevant time was serving as the Superintendent of District Jail, Dibrugarh, was put under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings. A show cause notice dated 30.10.91 was issued to the petitioner setting out as many as five charges and asking the petitioner to submit his reply to the said charges. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.2.92 and the said reply not having been found to be satisfactory an enquiry officer was appointed to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the meantime by order dated 2.9.92 the order of suspension against the petitioner was revoked and the petitioner was allowed to resume duties. The enquiry against the petitioner was completed on 14.8.93. The matter was thereafter kept in animated suspension for reasons not disclosed. Eventually on 10.4.96 the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. As it now appears, the report of enquiry was in favour of the writ petitioner exhonerating him from the charges levelled. In between the completion of the enquiry on 14.8.93 and submission of report of the enquiry to the disciplinary authority on 10.4.96 the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.5.94. Notwithstanding the retirement of the petitioner and the favourable report of enquiry submitted to the disciplinary authority, by order dated 21.5.97 the State authority took a decision to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and to hold a de novo enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The aforesaid decision of the authority was communicated by WT message dated 13.7.97 to the petitioner asking the petitioner to be present before the enquiry officer at 11 AM on 28.7.97. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.