The court emphasized that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited and does not permit interference with punishment unless grossly disproportionate, upholding the integrity of public service standards.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. J. Abedin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Konwar, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the Standing counsel of the P&RD Department appearing on behalf of all the Respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 16.09.2023 by which the major penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 7(v) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules of 1964) was imposed upon the Petitioner and the notification dated 26.09.2023 whereby the order dated 16.09.2023 imposing the major penalty was duly notified and given effect to.

3. The question involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement vide the order dated 16.09.2023 was in accordance with law.

4. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that though the Petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal in terms with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964, the Petitioner did not avail the said remedy but approached this Court. It is also very pertinent to take note of that the Petitioner has also not challenged the findings of the enquiry dated 21.06.2023.

5. Be that as it may, for the purpose of deciding the instant writ petition, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

FACTUAL PERSPECTIVE QUA THE PLEADINGS:

6. The materials on record would show that an FIR was lodged by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Dhubri before the Officer In- charge of Dhubri Police Station dated 08.07.2021 alleging misappropriation of money against Shri Saddam Hussain, Shri Abdullah Al Masud Mollah and Shri Jahidul Hoque. The said FIR was registered as Dhubri P.S. Case No.1097/2021 under Sections 120(B)/406/409/465/468/471/420/511 of the IPC.

7. It appears that the Petitioner herein in pursuance to the said FIR was arrested on 05.09.2021. On the basis of the arrest, the Petitioner was suspended in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. The Petitioner thereupon filed an application for bail before this Court which was registered and numbered as Bail Application No.3144/2021 and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court released the Petitioner on bail vide an order dated 26.11.2021.

8. Thereupon, on 04.01.2022, the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice in terms with Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964 thereby charging the Petitioner with gross negligence of duty and breach of conduct in performing duties and violation of Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The Petitioner submitted his statement of defence. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Officer was appointed for the purpose of carrying out the necessary enquiry.

9. It is pertinent to mention that during this period, the Petitioner was also reinstated to his service vide a notification dated 10.03.2022. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 21.06.2023. In respect to both the charges, it was opined by the Enquiry Officer that the said charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved beyond doubt.

10. At this stage, it is very relevant to take note of another aspect prior to the submission of the Enquiry Report dated 21.06.2023. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, submitted a letter dated 08.06.2022 reporting that the Petitioner herein was unable to monitor daily activities/progress of important schemes and requested his transfer due to poor performance. When the request for such transfer was placed before the Chief Minister of Assam, an order dated 07.10.2022 was issued directing the Department to consider the Petitioner for compulsory retirement in larger public interest.

11. Be that as it may, the enquiry so initiated against the Petitioner continued and on 21.06.2023 as aforestated, the Petitioner was found guilty as charged. Thereupon, the Enquiry Report being placed before the Departmental Review Committ