TANIL DUTTA Vs. OIL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, the learned advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. M. Hussain, learned advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents No.3 and 4.

(2.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that he is an ex-serviceman. As per request made by the respondent No.1 i.e. Oil India Ltd., by an order No. DMJ.10/2001 dated 06.12.2005, the respondent No.3 i.e. the District Magistrate Dibrugarh had, inter-alia, appointed the petitioner as Special Police Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SPO' for short). It is projected that having worked for almost 10 years without any blemish, by letter dated 11.09.2014, the Senior Manager (Security), for and on behalf of Head- Security, Oil India Ltd., had released the petitioner from their establishment. It is projected that upon his enquiry, the petitioner had came to learn that because of one day's alleged unauthorised absence from duty, he was released from his engagement as SPO. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and/or quashing the impugned (i) order No. DMJ.2/2014 dated 02.09.2014 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Dibrugarh (respondent No.4) with the approval of the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh (respondent No.3), and (ii) order No. OIL/SEC/ 069(SPO)/14/1236 dated 11.09.2014, issued by the Senior Manager (Security), for and on behalf of HeadSecurity, Oil India Ltd., and (iii) for a direction to the respondents to restore/ reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that at the relevant time, Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as "1861 Act" for short) was in force and the SPO's were statutorily appointed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 thereof. However, thereafter the State Government had enacted Assam Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "2007 Act" for short) and the said 1861 Act was repealed. However, under the 2007 Act, the Superintendent of Police had been vested with the power to appoint SPO's. Accordingly, it is submitted that the date on which the petitioner was released from service, the District Magistrate (respondent No.3) or his nominee or subordinate officer had no power or authority to permit the respondents No.1 and 2 to release the petitioner. It is submitted that the contents of the impugned order to the release of the petitioner was projected to be by virtue of an innocuous appearing order, but the said order was actually stigmatic because in the affidavit- in- opposition, the respondents No.1 and 2 had categorically admitted that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful, that he was in-disciplined, irresponsible, had indulged in insubordination and misbehaviour with his seniors, there was dereliction of duty, etc., and that he was not fit to be posted as security personnel and accordingly, by referring to the cases of (i) Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1974 2 SCC 831, (ii) Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Ors, 1985 AIR(SC) 84, and (iii) Prasanta Kalita Vs. Gauhati High Court & Anr, 2016 2 GauLT 85, it is submitted that the Courts have power to lift the veil to find out if the impugned order was termination simpliciter or the same was a camouflaged but stigmatic termination order. In this context, it is submitted that in view of the contents of the affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, there was no room for doubt that the order of releasing the petitioner was stigmatic and, as such, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service as the service of the petitioner was terminated without any disciplinary proceeding as envisaged under the Assam Services (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "1964 Rules" for short) read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India.