TYABUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Hindi teacher In Borshila M.E. School has filed the instant petition seeking interference of this Court with the order dated 26/8/1991 terminating the service of the petitioner. The present writ proceeding has been instituted on the following facts :

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Hindi teacher in Borshila M.E. School under the jurisdiction of District Elementary Education, Karimganj with effect from 1.4.1974. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the school was provincialised in the year 1978. While the petitioner was in service, a controversy with regard to the genuineness of the certificates submitted by the petitioner as a proof of his having passed the qualifying examination cropped up and by order dated 25.1.82 the petitioner was released from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 32/82 before the Civil Court and the learneol Court' by the judgment and decree dateol 26.3.84 declared the-release of the petitioner as illegal and in-operative in law. By the aforementioned judgment and decree, the Court held the petitioner as deemed to be in service, but at the same time liberty was also granted to the defendants in the suit to proceed, in a proper manner, to verify the question of genuineness of the certificates submitted by the petitioner. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, it may be mentioned, was affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, by order dated 25.10.84 the authority of the State Govt. directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was, however, allowed to resume duties only on and from 26.12.85. The salary of the petitioner from December 1981 to December, 1985 was not paid and though the salary was paid from the month of January, 1986 to January 1987, thereafter, again, such payment of salary had not been forthcoming. While the matter was so situated, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under the provisions of Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 asking the petitioner to show cause with regard to the charges and allegations contained in the aforesaid notice dated 27.10.87. It may be noticed herein that the aforesaid charges and allegation brought against the petitioner was in respect of the same issue of alleged forged/fabricated certificate. On 2.11.87 the petitioner by a written communication requested the authority to make available to the petitioner certain documents referred to in the show cause notice dated 27.10.87 so as to enable him to file an effective reply. The aforesaid request made was kept pending, which compelled the petitioner to submit a representation to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department on 17/7/1990. As no action was forthcoming on the part of the state authority, the petitioner initiated a proceeding before the Assam Administrative Tribunal which was registered as appeal case No. 16 ATA/91. The learned Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 9/2/1991 disposed of the said case with a direction that the representation of the petitioner pending before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department be disposed of within a period of three months. Thereafter, on 15.7.91, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department passed an order directing the District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj to dispose of the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner within 40 days. The said authority, namely the District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj by a communication dated 30.7.91 asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice dated 27.10.87 within five days from the date of receipt of the communication in question. The petitioner by letter dated 3.8.91, once again reiterated his request for inspection of the documents and the same having been allowed, the petitioner filed his reply in respect of the charges brought against him on 9.8.91. It may be noticed herein, that in the said reply, the petitioner categorically denied the charges brought against him. Thereafter on 26.8.91 an order was passed by the District Elementary Education, Karimganj terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.11.82.

(3.) Aggrieved the writ petitioner once again approached the Assam Administrative Tribunal by instituting a proceeding registered as appeal case No. 150 ATA/91. The learned Tribunal by judgment and order dated 6.5.92 dismissed the said appeal inter alia holding that the order of termination of the service of the petitioner being a termination simpliciter, no infirmity can be attached to the order of termination. The aforesaid finding was recorded notwithstanding the fact that before passing the order dated 26.8.91, no enquiry into the charges brought against the petitioner was held or conducted by the authority. The learned Tribunal by the aforementioned judgment and order however held that the retrospective termination of the petitioner with effect from 25.11.82 was not correct and that the termination should be effected from the dale of the order i.e. 26.8.91.