MRIGEN HALOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 31/12/2021 issued by the respondent authority discharging him from service. The writ petitioner has also called into question the legality and validity of the impugned order dtd. 31/12/2021 on the ground that the order is stigmatic and punitive in nature. Notwithstanding the same the order of discharge has been issued without following the due procedure prescribed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or giving him an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner herein had obtained his degree, i.e. B.Sc. (Agriculture) from the Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat. Having obtained his degree, the petitioner was looking for suitable employment. On 5/4/2013, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) had issued an advertisement notice inviting applications for filing up as many as 80 posts of Agricultural Development Officer (for short ADO). In response to the said advertisement, the writ petitioner had submitted his candidature. Accordingly, the petitioner had participated in the written test as well as the viva-voce examination. Eventually, the name of the petitioner found place in the final merit list of selected candidates published by the APSC. Having secured 78 marks in total, the petitioner was shown to have been selected for appointment in the post of ADO at Sl. No. 65 of the merit list. On 26/2/2016 the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, In-Charge of Agriculture Department, Dispur had issued a notification, notifying the appointment of 80 ADOs including the writ petitioner herein in the scale of pay-band-IV, i.e. Rs.12000.0040000+ Rs.54,000.00 (Grade Pay) per month including other allowances, as applicable under the rules. As per the notification dtd. 26/2/2016, the appointments of the ADOs were made temporarily and were subject to discharge without notice and without assigning any reason thereof. Accordingly, the petitioner had reported for duty before the Director of Agriculture, Assam on 29/2/2016 and submitted his joining report. Thereafter, the petitioner had undergone and completed the induction training programme, on completion of which, he was assigned posting as ADO, Bengtol Circle, Chirang vide notification dtd. 17/3/2016. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as ADO, Bengtol Circle, one unsuccessful candidate named Sri Bedanta Bikash Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Bhangagarh Police Station on 17/8/2017 alleging serious irregularities and malpractices in the selection process of candidates for the posts of ADO. In the FIR dtd. 17/8/2017, it has been mentioned that the then Chairman of the APSC, viz. Sri Rakesh Kumar Paul and his agent Musarraf Hussain had demanded a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 from him out of which, he had paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000.00. According to the informant he had passed the written examination as well as the viva-voce test but did not get selected. On the contrary, the APSC had taken bribe of Rs.15,00,000.00 from several other candidates and included the names of those candidates in the final select list. The writ petitioner herein has been named in the FIR dtd. 17/8/2017 as one of the beneficiaries of the 'cash for job scam'. Based on the FIR dtd. 17/8/2017, Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017 was registered of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation was started in the matter.