The failure to provide an Inquiry Report violated natural justice, leading to the reinstatement of the petitioner from the date of discharge.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. M. K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reinstate him in his service in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide judgment & order, dated 11.04.2001, in WP(c)5001/2001.

3. The petitioner, herein, while working as a Constable in the 5th Assam Police Battalion, was served with a Show Cause Notice, 31.10.1994, issued by the Commandant of the Battalion, requiring him to show cause as to why appropriate penalty should not be imposed upon him for having remained unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 13.10.1994. It was further alleged that on account of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, herein, extremist elements had overpowered the sentry constable and other guard party on 17.10.1994 and looted away arms and ammunitions along with a wireless handset. The petitioner was further alleged to have remained absent from his duty w.e.f. 13.10.1994 till 24.11.1994.

4. On conclusion of the inquiry so held in the matter, the disciplinary th authority of the petitioner, i.e. Commandant, 5 Assam Police Battalion, proceeded, vide order, dated 05.04.1995, to discharge the petitioner from his service w.e.f. 05.04.1994. Further, the period of desertion from the camp by the petitioner w.e.f. 13.10.1994 to 24.10.1994, was treated as leave without pay and the period of suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.10.1994 to 05.04.1994, was treated as on duty. The appeal as preferred by the petitioner in the matter, was rejected by the appellate authority, vide order, dated 24.06.1998.

5. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the said order, dated 05.04.1995, assailed the same by way of instituting before this Court a writ petition being WP(c)5003/2001. This Court, proceeded to take-up the matter for final consideration and upon hearing the parties to the proceeding and also upon considering the materials coming on record, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006, to dispose of the said writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order of discharge of the petitioner from service, dated 05.04.1995, as well as the order of the appellate authority, dated 24.06.1998, and further directed that the proceedings of the inquiry be re-commenced from the stage of furnishing a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer, to the petitioner, herein. It was further directed that in the event, the copy of the Inquiry Report was not made available to the petitioner, the respondent authorities would be called upon to pass consequential orders exonerating him from the charges so levelled against him, as any punishment, in such circumstances, was construed to have the effect of violating the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. The respondent authorities having not acted in the matter in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006, in WP(c)5003/2001, by, either, furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner, or, exonerating him from the charges as well as in not reinstating him, in service; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court on 10.04.2019.

7. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that after passing of the judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006, by this Court in WP(c)5003/2001; the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent authorities on numerous occasions, however, the respondent authorities inspite of having assured the petitioner of taking appropriate steps for compliance of the directions passed by this Court vide judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006; had not complied with the same. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, has acco