IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreeing with an Inquiry Officer's findings to uphold natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. R.S. Ronghang, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. No one appears for the respondent no.5.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 19.07.2023, whereby the Appointing Authority has been pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service.

3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Science Teacher at Gandhinagar M.E. School, Guwahati and after rendering 2 (two) years of service in the said post, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Audit Officer in the office of the Director of Audit (Local Fund), Guwahati on 19.05.1994, whereafter the petitioner joined the said post and started discharging his duties. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Audit Officer on 16.09.2005 and posted at Biswanath Chariali under the office of the Assistant Director of Audit, Tezpur and later on, he was promoted as Finance & Accounts Officer (FAO) in the month of January, 2013 and was posted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to Hamren Sub-Treasury as Treasury Officer vide Notification dated 12.12.2013 and subsequently the petitioner was also given the additional charge of FAO in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong District. It is the further case of the petitioner that after serving in the said capacity for few years, the petitioner was again transferred to Diphu Treasury as Treasury Officer with additional charge of Treasury Officer, Bokajan Sub-Treasury vide Notification dated 05.01.2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was holding the post of Treasury Officer at Diphu as stated above, pursuant to a search carried out by the jurisdictional police personnel certain cash was recovered from the office chamber of the petitioner pursuant to which an FIR was lodged being Diphu P.S. Case No.70/2019 under Section 120(B)/406/403/420 IPC and ultimately the petitioner was placed under suspension. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.01.2022 to the Disciplinary Authority ruling in favour of the petitioner. The respondent authorities thereafter by letter dated 21.02.2023 forwarded the said report to the petitioner seeking his response and though the finding of the Inquiry Officer was in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 19.07.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Inquiry Officer is in favour of the petitioner, wherein the Inquiry Officer has clearly acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him by the disciplinary authorities. He further submits that the second Show-Cause Notice issued to him by enclosing the said Inquiry Report was duly replied by the petitioner seeking exoneration from the charges and also for reinstating him in service, as per the findings of the said Inquiry Report. He further submits that shockingly the respondent authorities instead of accepting the Inquiry Report which was in favour of the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner from service. He further submits that the said action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, null and void, inasmuch as, no opportunity whatsoever was provided to the petitioner before disagreeing with the conclusion of the Inquiry Report as regards acquittal of the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. He further submits that Rule 9A of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to a