DINBESWAR BARUAH Vs. PUBLICATION BOARD, ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Rule nisi was obtained by the petitioner who at the material time was an Upper Division Assistant in the employment of the Publication Board, Assam at Gauhati.

(2.) A Departmental proceeding was instituted for certain misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet and that resulted in the impugned order of dismissal. The petitioner contends that be holds a Civil post under the State of Assam and, therefore, Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution is attracted. He alleges also violation of the rules of natural justice.

(3.) Mr. Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, very fairly submits that he cannot proceed in this case further unless he is in a position to satisfy us that the petitioner hold a Civil post under the Stale of Assam. He very rightly said that if he failed on this point he would not press his other points. With regard to this initial submission of Mr. Lahiri, he points out that by a resolution in the State Assembly some time in 1958, a decision was taken for constitution of Publication Board to encourage the cultural activities of the State. In pursuance of the resolution which was approved by the Assembly, it appears the Education Ministry of the State constituted a Publication Board and even certain rules were made with the approval of the Governor. We are not shown under what provision of law these rules were made. As at present advised, we are inclined to take these as administrative rules. Be that as it may, the Publication Board is constituted under these rules and under Rule 2 (b), the Board will function as an autonomous body. A Secretary is appointed by the Board with the prior approval of the Government which finances the body and which also receives grant-in-aid from other sources and even donations. The Secretary has power to appoint Lower Division Assistant and 4th grade employee and to recommend action to the Executive Committee. Upper Division Assistant is appointed by the Executive Committee. We are not concerned with the question of misconduct in this case which has been held to be proved in a departmental enquiry and a general body met and approved the decision of the Enquiry Officer.