The judgment established the principle that departmental proceedings must comply with the rules, and pursuing a departmental proceeding after the petitioner's honorable acquittal in a criminal case on the same charge and cause of action is unjust and unsustainable.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner, who was a driver under the respondent-Corporation, is aggrieved by the order of removal from service, which was so passed, pursuant to a departmental proceeding against him.

2. The departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated firstly by placing him under suspension by Annexure-'B' order dated 20.6.2000 and thereafter, by issuing charge sheet dated 10.10.2000 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The departmental proceeding was in respect of the death of the conductor of the bus which the petitioner had driven. Altogether charges had been leveled against the petitioner, but in effect, there was only one charge as could be gathered from the charges and the statement of allegation. Although the charge is stated to be driving of the vehicle carelessly and negligently, but on a reading of contents of the charges coupled with the statement of allegation, truly speaking, there was no such distinct and definite article of charge against the petitioner.

3. All the charges together with the statement of allegation only referred to the particular incident which occurred on 16.6.2000 on which date, the petitioner drove the Mangaldoi-Dhansiri bound bus bearing registration No. As-20-0560. It was during that journey, the conductor of the vehicle namely, Shri Bhaben Saharia died. As per the statement of allegation, the conductor had to get down from the vehicle to disperse the cows which blocked the road. Thereafter, the vehicle proceeded further and after sometime, it was detected that the conductor was not inside the bus. Situated thus, the petitioner drove the vehicle back for some distance and found the conductor lying on the road with certain injuries. As per the charge itself, the petitioner arranged for treatment of Shri Saharia in the nearby tea estate hospital. The case was referred to the Mangaldoi hospital, but on reaching the Mangaldoi hospital, the doctor present there declared Shri Saharia dead. Thus, as per the statements of allegation, the conductor of the bus said Shri Bhaben Saharia succumbed to his injuries.

4. On a bare perusal of all the charges coupled with the statement of allegation, there is nothing to indicate that it was because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Shri Saharia fell down from the bus and thereby sustained injuries. It is an admitted position that he had got down from the bus to disperse the cows which gathered on the road.

5. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving on his part. Referring to his 30 years of service, the petitioner in his written statement of defence stated that there was no justification of asking him to go to Dhansiri from Mangaldoi on that fateful day. According to the written statement, the particular tyre of the vehicle was badly damaged because of which the vehicle could not be run on 14.6.2000 and 15.6.2000. But on the fateful day, the same very tyre in damaged condition was made use of and the petitioner was directed to ply the vehicle from Mangaldoi to Dhansiri at the evening hours of the day (5.30 P.M.).

6. After the submission of the written statement of defence, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority conducted the purported enquiry and submitted his report on 8.11.2001 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. According to the petitioner, apart from the fact that he was not afforded with opportunity of engaging any defence counsel, he was also not afforded with opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the witnesses were examined behind his back. I have verified the departmental proceeding file from which it appears that the Enquiry Officer examined one Shri Ajit Sarmah, an officer of the Assam State Transport Corporation, Bongaigaon. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his statement was recorded to the effect that he would stand by