SAHABUDDIN CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has been referred to Full Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in the case. Judgment in Civil Rule 3176/91 is challenged in this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.

(2.) Appellant was selected and trained to work as Secretary of Co-operative Societies by Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited. He was first appointed and posted as Secretary, Ambagaon Samities Society, Nagaon on May 24, 1975. Later he was appointed as Secretary, Kapashbari Samabai Samity Limited. While so, he was placed under suspension by 3rd respondent, Chief Executive Officer of Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited. Memo of charges dated August 16, 1988 was served on him by the 3rd respondent specifying 4(four) charges and requiring him to file written statement within 10(ten) days. Appellant did not do so. Finally show cause notice was published in a newspaper and thereupon appellant submitted explanation dated December 15, 1988 3rd respondent decided to conduct an enquiry. Intimation that the enquiry would be held on May 15, 1989 was sent to appellant by registered post. He did not present himself for the enquiry. 3rd respondent conducted the enquiry and prepared a report holding appellant guilty of all the four charges. The second show cause notice enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and requiring the appellant to show cause why punishment proposed should not be inflicted on him, was sent to him by registered post. He did not respond. Thereupon, 3rd respondent passed an order dated September 26, 1989 dismissing appellant from service. This order also was sent to appellant. On May 30, 1991, appellant submitted a representation to Registrar of Co-operative Societies complaining for non-payment of subsisting allowance and praying for reinstatement, ignoring the enquiry and the dismissal. This was on the basis that the appellant was not aware of the developments. On June 17, 1991 he filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order of dismissal and seeking reinstatement and payment of wages as if he had been in continuous service. According to appellant, he did not receive the second show cause notice or the intimation regarding enquiry and, therefore, the enquiry and the dismissal order are illegal on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) 3Rd respondent filed counter affidavit rebutting the challenge against the enquiry and the dismissal order and contending that the second show cause notice as well as the intimation of enquiry were sent to the appellant by registered post at the address shown in the writ petition and the appellant was aware of these developments. He also asserted that subsistence allowance was paid up to November 30, 1988. Appellant failed to attend the enquiry or to submit reply to the second show cause notice and the enquiry was conducted lawfully. 3rd respondent was prepared to pay subsistence allowance from December 1, 1988. Appellant did not submit reply affidavit.