ANWAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-3-2011 issued by the Commissioner/Secretary, Education Department, Government of Assam (respondent 1) dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioner, may be briefly noticed at the very beginning. The petitioner was at the time of issuing the impugned order was holding the substantive post of Deputy Director of Education, Assam. During his tenure, he used to hold different positions including the post of District Elementary Education Officer ( "DEEO "), Sivsagar, which post he held between 1992 and 1996. During his stint at Sivsagar, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him vide the letter dated 4-12-2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 charging him with releasing salaries for 394 teachers whose names did not tally with the list of schools and the teachers approved by the Government. He was also charged with subsequently releasing the salaries of 73 teachers out of 564 in a phased manner though the names of teachers and schools in these cases also did not tally with the approved list of the Government. Thus, the substance of the charge is that he had released salaries to 473 teachers against the retention order of 564 posts for the year 2002-03 in a phased manner and did not release the salaries for the remaining teachers.

(3.) The petitioner responded to the show cause on 22-12-2003 by contending that, factually, he received the retention order of all the 564 number of teachers from the Directorate of Elementary Education and did release those salaries as a Government servant in the course of carrying out the directions of his superior authorities. According to him, even after undergoing the gruelling process of a full-fledged departmental enquiry, the authorities did not find any illegal acts against him, and his conduct was found to be appropriate and in accordance with law in terms of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer. As a result, the respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 10-8-2005 exonerated him with all the charges with the customary warning to be more careful in future.