HARUN HAQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the award dated 8.4.92 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 13/88 published on 9.6.92 holding that the management of Sibsagar Municipal Board was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- That the petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Tax Daroga in the year 1974 in Sibsagar Municipal Board and the petitioner was confirmed in the said post with effect from 15.8.80. The Chairman in charge of the Board, Respondent No. 3 suspended the petitioner on the allegation of temporary misappropriation of Board's fund. On 16.9.90, the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry with effect from 17.9.90 and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 20.9.90. The Municipal Board framed a set of Rules known as "Appointment to Service under the Board" in exercise of power conferred by Section 301 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rule lays down the procedure to be adopted in connection with the disciplinary proceedings and the imposing of penalty, the Rule visualises framing up of charges and statement of allegation, grant of opportunity to file written statement, filing of report by Enquiry Officer proposing penalty, further opportunity to show cause against proposed penalty. Rule 19 (2) (VIII) (b) provides that the said procedure will not apply wherein the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded in writing it is mot reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause. Subsequently, Rule 19 (1) as published in the Gazette of April 8,1959 is quoted below: The Assam Gazette, April 8, 1959 19 (1) No Municipal employee shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No Municipal Board employee other than a fourth grade employee shall be punished with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The following procedures should be scrupulously followed:

(3.) That on 23.3.81 the petitioner was reinstated in service vide resolution dated 23.3.81 with effect from 1.4.81 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 25.3.81. This was on a representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed his duties. That on 20.3.85 the then Executive Officer of the Board Mr. M.R. Quadir gave written order to the petitioner to destroy the papers lying in the tax branch which are of no use and on which no action would be taken by the authority. The order dated 20.3.85 by the Executive Officer is quoted below: