The initiation of disciplinary proceeding for an event which occurred a long time ago is not in the interest of the Department and would cause prejudice to the delinquent employee. The non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 prejudices the delinquent employee.

The above Civil Rules involve common question of law and similar facts. Accordingly I propose to dispose of both the Civil Rules by a common judgment. The petitioner has challenged Annexure II suspension order dated 10.10.94 and the Annexure V Charge Sheet dated 23.3.95 and Annexure X Revised Charge Sheet dated 29.12.96 and prays for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction.

2. The facts are : The petitioner is permanent resident of Nowaibill in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. He was appointed Head Master of a school known as Adarsha Rastrabhasa High School, Karbi Anglong in the year 1982. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong. As per the appointment he was discharging his duties. He was placed under suspension by Annexure II order dated 10.10.94 pending drawal of departmental proceeding. This order was received by the petitioner on 20.10.94. A writ petition was filed (Civil Rule No. 4373 of 1994) by him against the order of suspension. On 8.11.94 this Court stayed the order of suspension. Accordingly the petitioner continued to serve in the school. A departmental proceeding was initiated but not yet disposed of. In the said Civil Rule this Court directed the disciplinary authority to dispose of the deparmental proceeding within a period of 5 months. Thereafter, on 23.3.95 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet which contained three charges against the petitioner. The said charge sheet was not accompanied by any statements of allegations, list of witnesses and documents. This charge sheet was served by Annexure V order. The petitioner was asked to show cause against the charge sheet. Pursuant to Annexure V charge sheet the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 7.4.95 (Annexure VII). Thereafter the petitioner filed Civil Rule No.2917 of 1995 before this Court praying inter alia for quashing the departmental proceeding. This Court issued Rule and stayed further proceeding and also directed the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law. However, the order was not complied with. A contempt proceeding was also drawn up at the instance of the petitioner. An application was also filed by the respondents on 21.7.95 in which the respondent admitted the facts of non furnishing of the statements of allegations and list of witnesses and documents. By order dated 18.12.95 this Court vacated the stay order dated 21.7.95 and also granted two weeks tune to complete the departmental proceeding. A revised charge sheet was filed on 29.12.95 containing 5 charges by Annexure X. Against that the petitioner has filed the present Civil Rule challenging the subsequent revised charge sheet and further continuation of the departmental proceedings.

3. Charge No. 1 of the revised charge sheet contained allegations of misappropriation of fund during the period from 1.1.85 to 30.9.93. According to the petitioner he would face great difficulties if he is required to face the allegation of misappropriation of fund during the period from 1.1.85 to 30.9.93, that is, a decade ago. Besides, the revised charge sheet regarding the allegations of misappropriation of fund does not tally with the earlier charge sheet. There was no explanation of the inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet. According to the petitioner if this charge sheet is allowed to be enquired it would be unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner also alleges that the disciplinary authority was bias and acted with malafide intention in drawing up the proceeding. The whole purpose of initiation of the proceeding was to victimise the petitioner after so many years. |

4. In charge No.2 the petitioner's qualification for holding the post of Head Master has been questioned after 12 years by the Inspector of Schools who after enquiry and scrutiny gave appointment as Head Master. The petitioner further submits that the initiation of a departmental proceeding and the charges