SATYA PRASAD DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.7.1989 passed by the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam, discharging him from service, and for a direction on the respondents to reinstate him in service with all service benefits.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition briefly are that the petitioner was working as Inspector of Physical Education under the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam. While he was posted at Dhubri as such Inspector of Physical Education in the years 1987-1988. he remained absent on various dates and did not attend to his duties. The Inspector of Schools, Kokrajhar District Circle, called for an explanation from the petitioner for such unauthorised absence by his letter dated 20.8.1987. Subsequently, the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare also called for such explanation from the petitioner by his letters dated 22.7.1988, 5.9.1988 and 18.11.1988. Although the petitioner's case is that he submitted his replies/explanations, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 it has been stated that no reply to the show cause notices issued to the petitionei was received by any authority. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from service by order dated 7.7.1989 of the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this court in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that against the impugned order of discharge, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Government, and after considering the said representation, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Sports & Youth Welfare Department, in his letter dated 5th May, 1997, to the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam, has taken a view mat the impugned order of discharge with retrospective effect without observing the prescribed procedure laid down in Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, (for short, "the Rules, 1964), appears to be erronecous. Mr. Mahmud submitted that in the said letter dated 5th May, 1997, the Secretary, Sports & Youth Welfare Department has also directed the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam to enquire into the charge of unauthorised absence of the petitioner as per the procedure laid down in rule 9 of the Rules, 1964, immediately after his reinstatement in the original post, but notwithstanding the said direction of the Secretary, Sports & Youth Welfare Department, the Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam, has not reinstated the petitioner in service.