DWIPEN KONWAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 390/95 anises out of the common judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of Civil Rule No. 1577/94, presented by Taranath Gogol, son of Late Surjya Kanta Gogoi, and No. 1578/94, presented by Shri Dwipen Konwar, son of Late Madhav Konwar, by order made on 8th May, 1995. However, the Writ Appeal No. 390/95 has been presented by only Taranath Gogoi, Shri Dwipen Konwar, however, has presented a separate Writ Appeal No. 353/95 challenging that common order made by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the above two Civil Rules, dated 8th May 1995. Whereas Writ Appeal No. 419/ 95 is presented by Shri Malin Chandra Gohain, son of Late Kanak Chandra Gohain, against the judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 3757/94, dated 24th May, 1995.

(2.) Since all these appeals arise out of identical questions of law in the said Civil Rules which were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by two different sets of orders referred to above, we propose to dispose of these three Writ Appeals by the following common judgment.

(3.) We will refer to the salient facts of the two appeals, namely Writ Appeals No. 353/95 and 390/95, arising out of Civil Rules Nos.1577/ 94 and 1578/94, which were heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge, dated 8th May, 1995. They are as follows : In Civil Rules Nos. 1577/94 and 1578/94, which were presented with a common set of facts and grounds clubbing together seeking for a common relief challenging the two identical orders impugned in the writ petitions. The case of the petitioners was that both the petitioners had been serving the Government of Assam as Assam Government Civil Servants. At the relevant point of time, that is, between 2,8.91 to 25.11.92, petitioner in C.R. No. 1577/94 (Taranath Gogoi) had been serving as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, while the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1578/94 (Dwipen Konwar) had been serving in the same capacity from 6.1.92 to September, 1992. The allegations are that during this period these two petitioners issued Letters of Credit (in short, LOCs). The amount of money involved in these several LOCs run into several crores. The general allegations made in the writ petitions are that there were large scale manipulations and forgery, forging the LOCs, and this factum of large scale forgery resulting in misappropriation of a large amount of money in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department of the State was highlighted in the press. It was alleged that there was involvement of these two petitioners while they were administering the Department by issuing LOCs. These anomalies came to be known as "LOC Scandal". It is alleged that as there was so much of pressure from the opposition parties for holding enquiries into the alleged LOC scam, the Govt. of Assam ultimately appointed an one man committee, known as the "K.S. Rao Committee", to go into the question of allegations and to submit a report. However, before the submission of the report by the Rao Committee, orders were passed by the Government suspending the petitioners by orders made on 5.8.93. The allegation was that as these petitioners were involved in the scam, they were placed under suspension pending submission of the report by the Rao Committee. These orders of suspension were challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Civil Rules Nos. 2198/93 and 2199/93. However, despite the orders made by this Court on 26.11.93 quashing the orders of suspension, these petitioners were not taken back to duty. On the other hand, charge sheets were submitted against them by an order made on 13.1.94 in respect of the issuance of LOCs by these Officers.