NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Borah learned Government advocate, Assam.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset. The writ petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the Assam Police Radio Organization and posted at Dispur, was served with a charge memo dated 27th October, 1999 asking the petitioner to submit his written statement in defence with regard to his alleged absence from duty without leave following the expiry of 5 (five) days Casual Leave with effect from 27.11.98. According to the writ petitioner, on the expiry of the aforesaid Casual Leave, as he fell ill, he could not join duties. The charge memo dated 27.11.98 was not served on him. Pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo, an enquiry was held which was conducted ex parte and the petitioner came to know of the aforesaid developments when a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report along with the punishment proposed was communicated to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a representation asking the authority to recall the proposed action and the same not having been done and the petitioner having been discharged from service by order dated 17.4.2000, the. instant writ petition has been filed after exhausting the departmental remedies.

(3.) MR . R. K. Borah, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents has placed before the Court the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents. According to the learned State counsel, after the leave of the petitioner had expired and he had not reported for duty, several attempts were made to require the petitioner to report for duty. When all such attempts failed, a departmental proceeding was drawn up by Memo dated 27.10.99. All attempts were made to serve the charges on the writ petitioner and to ensure his presence in the enquiry proceeding; however, all such efforts had yielded no positive results as the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known. Placing the affidavit filed, the learned Govt. advocate, argued that the long absence of the petition or was on account of the fact that the petitioner was evading arrest in connection with the criminal case instituted against him, i.e., Dispur P.S. Case No. 1209/98. The second show cause notice dated 22.3.2000 way served on the father of the petitioner on 26.3.2000 and the petitioner must have come to know of the same upon his release on bail on 4.4.2000, The reply to the said notice was received by the respondent -authority on 17.4.2000 by which time the order of discharge had already been passed. In any case, it is argued, the difficulties of the petitioner which had compelled him to remain absent was expressed in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner which were duly considered and rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 9.1.2001. According to the learned State counsel, in the enquiry conducted ex parte, witnesses in support of the charges were examined and the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer were based on the materials adduced.