PRANAB ROUTH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the relevant time, the petitioner Sri Pranab Routh was working as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Officer of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, in the District of Nagaon. He was placed under suspension by order dated 29.08.2002 on ground that he could not produce his original appointment letter. For the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, the Deputy Inspector Schools, Hojai issued Show Cause Notice on 29.06.2005 as to why penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, referred to as "the Rules of 1964") should not be inflicted on him. In the said Show Cause Notice, it was stated that the petitioner had worked as Primary School Teacher at Sarupathar L.P. School under the Office of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Kothiatoli. He was asked on several occasions to produce the original appointment letter and the transfer orders and that he failed to produce the same. The said documents were required to ascertain the genuineness of his appointment and transfer orders. It is also indicated in the Show Cause Notice that the said verification exercise had been taken on receipt of certain reliable report regarding his appointment letter and transfer orders, which appeared to be doubtful. The petitioner was allowed to submit written statement in defence within 10(ten) days and to show cause as to why he should not be terminated from service. Along with the said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner was also served with the Statement of Allegations. Reply to the Show Cause Notice was made on 20.07.2005. It was stated that in so far as the transfer orders are concerned, he had submitted the same on 05.06.2002. As regards his original order of appointment, petitioner replied that the same was lost at the time of his shifting to Hojai. However, the petitioner contended that a copy of the same was available in his Service Book as well as in the Office records maintained in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar. A categorical statement was also made that the report on which the verification exercise was undertaken, copy thereof was not furnished to him. Prayer was made that further action in the matter be kept in abeyance until the petitioner can file a detailed and effective reply after being furnished with a copy of the said report. What followed thereafter, is the issuance of the impugned order of dismissal dated 08.04.2010 under the hand of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The said impugned order dated 08.04.2010 shows that a hearing had taken place in the Directorate on 30.11.2010 (sic) and in the said hearing the petitioner had explained as to how the appointment and transfer orders got lost. The said impugned order also took into consideration a letter of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar dated 12.05.2006 and also the fact that the Head Teacher of 60 Tupkhana L.P. School had denied to the effect that no teacher named as Pranab Routh joined and worked in the said school. On examination of the written statement of defence and materials on record, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam found that the appointment and transfer orders shown by the petitioner were fraudulent. Accordingly, penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 was imposed. It is, this order that is being put to test in the present writ proceedings.

(2.) The gangplank of the submission of Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel or the petitioner, is with regard to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. Mr. Dutta submits that right from the start, the petitioner was not furnished with the alleged report on the basis of which verification exercise was undertaken nor the letter of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar dated 12.05.2006 and the information received from the Head Teacher of 60 Tupkhana L.P. School, which formed the basis for imposing punishment upon the petitioner by arriving at a decision that the appointment and transfer orders were fraudulent. It is also contended that neither any list of witnesses nor documents were furnished along with the Statement of Allegations nor any enquiry was conducted or Inquiry Officer appointed in terms of the procedure laid down under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 1964. While arriving at the impugned decision, no witnesses were examined, not to speak of affording opportunity to the petitioner to examine any material witlessness. Submission of Mr. Dutta is that having regard to the above, the impugned order dated 08.04.2010 is ex facie illegal and non est in law. Prayer is made that order be passed for setting aside the impugned order with direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service with full back wages.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel representing Elementary Education Department, have produced the records. Until this date, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents despite opportunities being given by this Court.