SONALI HAZURI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of dismissal of the Petitioner from service passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati.

(2.) THE Petitioner Shri Sonali Hazuri was appointed as Copyist in 1970 and in 1932 he was serving at Barnagar Circle, Sarbhog, On 29.6.1982 the normal work and movement were disrupted on account of the Assam Bundh Call given by the leaders of anti foreigners movement in Assam. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner made all possible endeavor to attend his office on 29.6.82 but be could not do so on account of physical obstruction, given by some unknown youth when the Petitioner was on his way to attend his office, It is stated that the Petitioner's absence from duty on 29.6.82 was entirely due to reason beyond his control and was not due to any negligence or willfulness on the part of the Petitioner, The Petitioner was served with a notice dated 30.8.32 (Annexure 1 to the petition) issued by the Sub -divisional Officer, Barpeta to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his unauthorized absence from duty on 29.6.82. The Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 7.9.82 by Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner was served with a notice No. 364/82 dated 23.9.82 of the disciplinary proceeding issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, with the charges which read as follows:

(3.) IT is submitted by Shri A. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority failed to appreciate the written explanation and the statement given by the Petitioner to meet the allegations of the charges and the authority was not justified to bold the Petitioner guilty of the charge of resorting to strike as defined in Section 2(1)(C) of the E. S. M. (Assam) Act. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the Enquiry Officer did not ascertain from the Sub -deputy Collector, Barnagar, whether there was retardation of work in his office on 29.6.82 due to the absence of the Petitioner and also the facts and circumstances prevailing in and around Barnagar on that day arising out of Assam Bandh although the Petitioner made such request by his statement to the Enquiry Officer. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was nothing to hold that the contents of Government notification No. ABP 355/81/116 dated 28.6.82 reached to the employees of Barnagar circle in lime and the same was also not ascertained from the Sub -deputy Collector of Barnagar Circle in the said Disciplinary Proceeding and so the charge No. 2 was also not substantiated.