ABHIJIT CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was removed from service by order dated 24.09.1999 pursuant to a departmental proceeding on various charges, has put to challenge the said order by filing the instant writ petition after nearly 10 years of the said order. On being asked about the cause of delay of 10 years, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain the same in reference to the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. In the said paragraph it has been stated that the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order of removal from service in view of the pedency of a criminal case in which judgment of acquittal was passed on 28.03.2008. As to whether the very pendency of the criminal proceeding can debar initiation and finalization of the departmental proceeding and on conclusion of the same whether a penalty can be imposed and whether the delinquent can wait till the outcome of the ciminial proceeding, will be discussed a little later.

(2.) THE petitioner has a chequered history of his service career. He had joined as Lower Division Assistant�cum-Typist in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on 22.11.1992. He was discharged from service by order dated 05.01.1994 on the basis of certain allegations against him. He filed a writ petition being CR No. 352/1994 challenging the order of termination. On the basis of the judgment passed in the writ petition, he was reinstated in service on 01.11.1994.

(3.) THAT it appears from official records that previously your service was terminated by learned Predecessor Mr. S.K. Kar for your gross misconduct against which you directly preferred a writ petition before the Hon.ble High Court and during pendency of the same learned Predecessor Mr. G.M. Paul very graciously appointed you in a vacant post of this establishment subject to termination of your service without assigning any reason or as per decision of the Hon.ble High Court in your writ petition, and again you are found flouting the orders of the under signed as asserted above which is clear insubordination and gross misconduct on your part." 5. In response to the charges leveled against him, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.05.99. Being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority conducted a departmental enquiry in which the enquiry officer found all the charges against the petitioner to have been established. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of removal from service by the impugned order dated 24.09.99 (Annexure-8) followed by his release order dated 24.09.99 (Anenxure-9).