ANANDILAL Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. R. Gogoi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) THE compulsory retirement of the petitioner imposed by way of punishment following a disciplinary proceeding, as made by order dated 30.7.2004, is the subject -matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE pleadings made in the writ petition and the arguments advanced highlight two significant aspects of the case, which in the considered view of the Court go to the root of the matter. According to the petitioner, after 23.10.1998 on which date he had appeared before the Enquiry Officer there was no further appearance made by him and there was no participation of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. That was because the petitioner had no knowledge of any further conduct of the departmental proceedings and he had not received any intimation with regard to the same. The petitioner contends that in the incomplete report of enquiry which was furnished to him along with the communication dated 3.3.2004, it has been mentioned that summons dated 1.5.2002 and 24.7.2002 have been issued to the petitioner in spite of which the petitioner did not appear and, therefore, the departmental proceeding was held ex parte. According to the petitioner, neither of the aforesaid summons dated 1.5.2002 and 24.7.2002 or any other summons was received by him at any point of time. The second significant aspect of the case which had, been highlighted by the petitioner is that though in the memo dated 3.3.2004 it has been mentioned that the report of the Enquiry Officer is being furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner was actually furnished with a single page of the said report and the rest of the report was not made available to him. The single page of the report of the Enquiry Officer does not make any intelligent reading and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his right to file his representation against the actions proposed in the communication dated 3.3.2004.