Ujjal Bhuyan, J. –

Heard Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. SK Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Thakur, learned Standing Counsel, Personnel Department.

2. Petitioner is the same in both the writ petitions. In the first writ petition i.e., WP(C) No.6666/2014, the prayer made is for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass final order on the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner whereas, in the second writ petition i.e., WP(C) No.395/2015, prayer made is for quashing the order dated 08.01.2015 directing fresh inquiry. Further prayer made is for release of Integrity Certificate for consideration of petitioner's appointment by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

3. Petitioner is an Assam Civil Service (ACS) Officer and is presently serving as Principal Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. Show cause notice dated 11.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (A) Department under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, alleging that while he was serving as Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, he had sponsored excess candidates than the number of candidates requisitioned by the respective Departments. The charge related to filling up the vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant and Grade-IV under different Departments. The show cause notice was accompanied by a statement of allegation and lists of documents and witnesses. In the list of documents, an inquiry report of Sri PK Choudhury, IAS, Addl. Chief Secretary, dated 17.06.2011 was mentioned. Petitioner wrote to the disciplinary authority that he was not aware of such inquiry report and sought for a copy of such report. However, written statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner on 11.05.2012 denying the charge levelled against him. It was specifically stated that all decisions were taken by the Selection Committee which were accepted by the petitioner in his capacity as Director of Employment & Craftsman Training being the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee.

4. It appears that the written statement submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable to the disciplinary authority and, accordingly, it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

5. Inquiry Officer held enquiry at the conclusion of which he submitted his report dated 16.04.2014 to the disciplinary authority. Inquiry Officer stated that the recommendations for all the posts had the sanction of the collective decision making of the Selection Committee. Therefore, singling out the petitioner for punitive action may not be justified. It was also pointed out that the Selection Committee had recommended the candidates subject to approval of the Finance Department. Accordingly, Inquiry Officer concluded that petitioner may not be held responsible for forwarding the recommendations of 272 candidates for Junior Assistant and 144 candidates for Grade-IV consequent upon recommendation made by the Selection Committee. As such, petitioner should be exonerated from the charge brought against him.

6. Copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner vide the forwarding letter dated 03.05.2014. In response thereto, petitioner submitted his representation dated 09.05.2014 requesting the disciplinary authority to accept the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him.

7. Since no decision was taken, the first writ petition i.e., WP(C) No.6666/2014 was filed. This Court passed order dated 18.12.2014 issuing notice and observed that respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate order after taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law.

8. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08.01.2015 was passed by the Personnel (A) Department. By the said order, the disciplinary authority took the view that the basic charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document