Point of Law : In exceptional facts of case further continuation of departmental proceedings against petitioner would not be in the interest of justice

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal taking into account the similarity of the facts and the parties being the same. From the records of both the writ petitions, it reveals that the petitioner initially was appointed as a Senior Showroom Manager temporarily, vide an order dated 31.03.1981 issued by the then Managing Director of the Assam Spun Silk Mills Limited (for short “the Company”). The record further reveals that on 06.05.1996 a Memorandum of Charge was issued against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution thereby charging the petitioner with negligence of duties, insubordination, inefficiency and loss of confidential credence etc. The petitioner on receipt of the said Memorandum of Charge replied to the same in the 2nd week of June, 1996 and thereupon the petitioner was served with a notice dated 19.09.1996 by the Respondent No.4, who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to hold enquiry on 30.09.1996, at the office of the Liaison Officer of the Hindustan Paper Corporation. It further reveals from the records that the Inquiry Officer further advised the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and the petitioner had submitted his reply on 07.10.1996. Upon perusal of the said reply, the Inquiry Officer proposed to conduct an inquiry proceeding into the allegations and accordingly fixed 28.10.1996 for examination of the management witness. Thereupon nothing happened in the said inquiry proceedings.

2. It is further relevant to take note of that the Company wherein the petitioner was employed on account of various strikes could not function. Under such circumstances, the State Government issued a Notification dated 20.09.2004 thereby publishing a scheme to meet the situation like closure of the Company. The said scheme was again revised by a subsequent Notification dated 15.02.1996 issued through the Respondent No.2. Another notification was also issued on 15.02.2006 itself wherein certain guidelines were issued for meeting the basic requirement in disposal/utilization of the assets of the closed State Level Public Enterprise, i.e. the Company. It is further relevant to take note of that pursuant to those two Notifications dated 15.02.2006, another Office Memorandum was issued on 15.05.2008 by the Respondent No.2 wherein various guidelines have been issued for payment of the outstanding salary/wages etc. and ex-gratia payment to the employees of the Public Sector Enterprises released under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) AGPRMP. It is relevant to take note of that in Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 15.05.2008, it was specifically mentioned that VRS should not be given to those employees/workers against whom disciplinary proceedings/ prosecution sanction/Court cases or any other case like suspension/dismissal etc. is pending settlement.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner duly applied for the VRS in terms with the above Notification. It is seen from the records that an amount of Rs.1,84,315/-was paid to the petitioner on 15.12.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount was paid in terms with the VRS scheme announced vide the Notification dated 15.02.2006 read with the Office Memorandum dated 15.05.2008. Though the said amount was paid, the petitioner was aggrieved at the quantum of the amount so paid, for which the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3497/2009. The said writ petition was disposed off, vide an order dated 21.08.2009 wherein this Court granted the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Respondent Authorities detailing the necessary facts, more particularly the heads under which, according to him, he is entitled to further payment under the VRS. This Court directed the Respondents therein that if the petitioner files the rep