CHIRANJEEB DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is employed as Superintendent of Excise, Government of Assam. He was selected for appointment pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APSC"). The petitioner topped in the merit list and after completion of his training, he joined in the year 1992. His first posting was in Barpeta as Superintendent of Excise. Thereafter, he was transferred to various places and he performed his duties to the best of his ability and without any complaints from any quarters. Because of his dedication to service, he had undertaken several research and studies into the various negative influences which had played the society. He submitted his report to the Government on the study in the research made. During his tenure of service, he was transferred and posted in various stations across the State. During his posting at Haflong, the Petitioner filed several representations before the authorities seeking his transfer to the district of Kamrup on account of his ailing parents who required medical treatment. After almost a lapse of one year, the Government of Assam, Excise department finally issued a notification dtd. 21/5/2015 by which the Petitioner was transferred and posted as Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup. The petitioner assumed his charge on 25/5/2015. Because of conspiracies hatched by one Shri Partha Pratim Phukan who was an applicant for a bar licence before the department and because of the non fulfillment of the Prescribed procedure, the application of the Shri Partha Pratim Phukan stood rejected by the petitioner. The said application was rejected as it was not accompanied by the application fee and the No Objection Certificate from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, besides other documents as a result of which the said application could not be processed. Subsequently, the applicant filed another application before the authorities after obtaining the NOC from the GMC Authorities. As per the procedure, the concerned Inspector of Excise of the concerned zone was required to conduct an enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the concerned Inspector of Excise, the application of Sri Phukan stood rejected. Although the said Sri Phukan repeatedly requested for review of the orders passed for rejection of his application for license, the petitioner being a Superintendent of Excise did not have the power to review and recall the order of rejection as per the Rules. Since the application of the said Sri Phukan for the license was not issued, the said Shri Phukan continued to pursue the said progress and status of his application. In this regard, the said Shri Phukan used to visit the House of the petitioner without any invitation. In order to hatch a conspiracy against the petitioner, on 27/9/2016, the said Sri Phukan approached the petitioner in his residence without any invitation and tried to thrust some currency notes to the petitioner and thereafter instantly move away from his house. The Petitioner was shocked at the behavior of said Sri Phukan and rushed after him calling his name but immediately the officials of vigilance and anti corruption entered the parental premises of the petitioner and arrested him on 27/9/2016.

(2.) It is the case projected on behalf of the petitioner that he became a victim of a conspiracy hatched by the said Shri Partha Pratim Phukan because the petitioner maintained high integrity and discipline and dedication in rendering his official duties. Consequent to his arrest on 27/9/2016, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawl of disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner thereafter approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court seeking bail. By ordered dtd. 31/10/2016, the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department issued a Show cause notice dtd. 28/10/2016 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (hereinafter to as "the Rule of 1964") as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rule should not be inflicted upon the petitioner.

(3.) After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an application praying for the list of documents as well as the witnesses on the basis of which the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum of charge, will be sought to be proved. However, no such list of the documents or witnesses were furnished to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply on 1/2/2017 against the show cause notice categorically denying the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner explained in detailed as to how the application of the said Shri Partha Pratim Phukan for obtaining license stood rejected and the influence sought to be imposed by the said Shri Partha Pratim Phukan on the petitioner after his application stood rejected. Although the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension, however, as no such subsistence allowance was paid, the Petitioner represented before the authorities for release of the said, which however, yielded no response. Subsequently on 31/7/2018, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department furnished report of the enquiry officer dtd. 10/1/2018 to the petitioner. In the said enquiry report, the enquiry officer held the charges to be proved.