DURGESWAR RAY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respon-dents.

(2.) THIS is a matter pending since the year 2003. Though the case was admitted as far back as on 11.09.2003, the State respon-dents have not filed their affidavit. There is none either to argue the case on behalf of the respondents nor to produce the record though the same was directed to be produced by the Court. Under such circumstances, the averments made in the writ petition remain uncontroverted and those are taken to be the correct statement of facts.

(3.) MRS. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate person having read only up to XI standard. Because of such deficiency, he could not submit his reply. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not provided with any Defence Assistant. She further submits that though the petitioner was present before the Enquiry Officer on the date fixed i.e. 18.08.2001, no copy of the Inquiry Report was thereafter furnished to him. Denying the allegation of intoxication, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier suffered from a bout of depression and had he been given a proper opportunity, he would have satisfied the authority about his innocence. Learned counsel submits that there was no misconduct or disobedience by the petitioner. She finally submits that the removal of the petitioner from service is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and fair procedure and in the circumstances of the case, is grossly disproportionate. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: