Procedural fairness in administrative enquiries requires disclosure of allegations and materials for a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Article 311 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard, Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Ghose, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, as well as Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated 10.07.2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur whereby an enquiry was directed against the petitioner, Gram Pradhan of Lot 11, Village-Bamunchuburi, Mouza- Bhairabpad and pending such enquiry, his function was divested and assigned to another Gram Pradhan.

3. The petitioner also assails the consequential position reflected in the reply furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short), indicating his removal and withholding of his honorarium.

4. The action originates from certain complaints alleged to have been lodged against the petitioner, which prompted the concerned District Commissioner to initiate the enquiry through the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite awaiting the outcome of the enquiry and for an opportunity of hearing, no communication whatsoever was forthcoming. Left with no alternative, the petitioner submitted an application under the RTI Act through his Advocate seeking information regarding the status of the enquiry.

6. The reply furnished under the RTI Act reveals that the petitioner has been removed from his position as Gram Pradhan and that his honorarium has been withheld for consideration at a later stage.

7. The petitioner has also assailed the said decision of removal/termination, as reflected in the RTI response, in the present proceeding.

8. The State respondents, more particularly the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur has filed an affidavit taking a specific stand that, during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner was duly called upon to appear for a hearing and to record his statement, but he failed to do so on the scheduled date.

9. It is further contended that subsequent to the enquiry, the petitioner visited the office of the concerned officer and explained that on the grounds of apprehension of being assaulted by Members of the public, he did not appear and that he did admit his guilt in writing.

10. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, reiterated his apprehension of a threat to his safety and alleged that he was compelled by the respondent No. 4 to write and sign the statement as dictated to him, upon an assurance that it would not be treated as an admission of guilt or misconduct.

11. According to the petitioner, the said statement was obtained under circumstances of coercion and risk, thereby rendering it unreliable.

12. Insofar as multiple complaints are concerned, the petitioner's stand is that, even after filing the RTI application, the respondent authorities failed to furnish copies of all three complaints to the petitioner.

13. It is thus urged that the very foundation of the enquiry, premised on an undisclosed complaint, is unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the only complaint furnished under the RTI Act does not pertain to the petitioner in his official capacity, but relates to the conduct of his wife, and hence, it cannot form the basis of any action against him.

14. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Konwar, learned Senior counsel submits that it is well settled that the post of Gram Pradhan, though executive in nature and functioning under the supervision of the Mouzadar, the same constitutes a civil post, thereby entitling the incumbent to the protection emphasis under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

15. It is argued that in the present case, the principle of natural justice has been wholly disregarded while proceeding against the petitioner. In support, he places reliance on the determination of the