BIPULANANDA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been working as a District Transport Officer under the Govt. of Assam since 1985. A show cause notice dated 29.3.1997 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department to the petitioner to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the said rules should inflicted on him on the charges mentioned in the said show cause notice. Along with the said show cause notice a list of documents, a list of witnesses and statement of allegations on the basis of which the charges are proposed to be proved were also enclosed. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was required to submit his written statement in defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement in defence to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department in his letter dated 17th April, 1997. No enquiry into the charges against the petitioner was conducted thereafter. On 30.11.99 a Selection Committee met for recommending promotion to a post of Asstt. Commissioner and all eligible candidates including the petitioner were considered for such promotion. Since the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was pending recommendation of the Selection Committee in respect of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover and the said recommendation was to be given effect to only upon conclusion of disciplinary proceeding. In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the Selection Committee placed Sri Pratap Sonowal at SI. No.1 and the writ petitioner at SI. No.2 for promotion to the vacancy in the post of Asstt. Commissioner. Sri Pratap Sonowal retired from service without being promoted. On 25.3.2000, the competent authority decided to hold a fresh selection to fill up the vacancy in the post of Asstt. Commissioner.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in W.P.(C) No. 1466/2000 praying for quashing the show cause notice dated 29.3.97 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department and the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the said show cause notice and for quashing the decision of the competent authority taken on 25.3.2000 to hold a fresh selection for promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner of Transport. In the said writ petition, the petitioner also prayed for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner without adopting the sealed cover procedure. The petitioner also made an interim prayer in the said writ petition for directing the respondents not to hold any fresh selection for promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner of Transport. On 29.3.2000 this court, while issuing rule in the said writ petition, passed an interim order that pending disposal of the writ petition, no promotion shall be made to the post of Asstt. Commissioner, Transport, Govt. of Assam.

(3.) On 6.4.2000, a notification was issued by the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department constituting a Selection Committee for selection of candidates for promotion to the cadre of Asstt. Commissioner, Transport Department. The petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in W.P.(C) No. 1905/2000 with a prayer to quash the said notification dated 6.4.2000. In the said writ petition, the petitioner also made an interim prayer not to give effect to the said notification dated 6.4.2000. On 12.4.2000 this court, while issuing rule in the said writ petition, passed an interim order that pending disposal of the writ petition, no selection shall be made or the post of Asstt. Commissioner, Transport by the Selection Committee constituted by the notification dated 6th April 2000. On 24/26th April, 2000, Mr. B.M.Doley, Joint Commissioner, Transport was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and on 3rd May 2000 the said Enquiry Officer requested the petitioner to appear before him on 16.5.2000. On 19.6.2000 this court passed an interim order that in the meantime, enquiry, if any, contemplated against the petitioner will not be proceeded with. The two writ petitions were heard together on 21.11.2000, 5.12.2000 and 24.12.2000 respectively.