Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. Both the writ petitions, being inter-connected, were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. As a matter of fact, the WP(C) No. 3972 of 2011 is the offshoot of WP(C) No. 3968 of 2011.

2. To start with, the petitioner belonged to the Assam Education Service, had used to serve as Inspector of Schools, HDC, Hailakandi from 1996 to1998 and then as Deputy Director (Secondary) Education from 14-11-2003. While he was serving in that capacity, he received the show cause dated 18-8-2006 charging him with transferring and posting permanently twelve teaching/non-teaching staff of venture schools without following the extant rules and procedure. He replied to the show cause by denying all the allegations made against him. Apparently, not satisfied with his explanation, he was placed under suspension vide the notification dated 22-9-2005. According to the petitioner, the findings recorded in the suspension are ex facie stigmatic and betrayed the pre-conceived mind of the disciplinary authority. This was followed by another show cause notice dated 9-11-2005, which revealed that out of the allegations pertaining the twelve employees involved in the first show cause dated 18-8-2005, only three remained, but two new allegations concerning one Babul Neog and Achit Kumar Nath were added.

3. The petitioner was, however, reinstated to service within one month thereafter by posting him as Deputy Director in the Office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide the notification dated 15-12-2005. He again filed his reply to the show cause dated 9-11-2005 denying each of the allegations and justifying his actions. However, after inordinate and unexplained delay, Shri S. Ali, Jint Secretary, Education (Secondary) Department, Govt. of Assam, was finally appointed as the enquiry officer. Subsequently, the enquiry officer was replaced by Shri M. Rahman, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, who, according to the petitioner, is biased and vindictive towards him. Though the inquiry was conducted and concluded, he was never informed about the fate of the enquiry. Ultimately, he received the order dated 11-2-2010 initiating a fresh enquiry in respect of the same set of charges by appointing Shri H.K. Baidya, Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department as the Enquiry Officer. From the order dated 11-2-2010, he came to know that the enquiry report submitted by the said M. Rahman was ignored by the disciplinary authority and that his enquiry report was never furnished to him. The fresh enquiry was thereafter held with few sittings without observing due procedure. After maintaining silence for a few months, the impugned order of penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. The pay and allowances during the period of his suspension were also restricted to the subsistence allowances already paid to him. He then took the matter in appeal before the Governor of Assam under Rule 15 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The appeal has not been disposed of till now. Aggrieved by this, he filed the first writ petition. In the meantime, the respondent authorities started the promotion process for promotion to the posts of Joint Director in the Education (Elementary) Department and promoted the respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of WP(C) No. 3972/11, who are admittedly to junior to him, to the posts of Joint Director on the recommendation of the Selection Board held on 11-1-2010. The petitioner was not promoted due to the ongoing departmental enquiry against him. His case was, however, kept under sealed cover procedure. Even after the completion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner could not be considered for the promotion as he was ultimately awarded a penalty of censure by the disciplinary authority. The departmental enquiry was initiated and concluded in accordance with rules after giving reasonab