ORDER

Date : 11-10-2023 Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the Order, dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, vide no. E- 7962/96/813(a) whereby, the petitioner, Ex-peon has been terminated from service w.e.f. 28.05.2014 who was placed under “dies non” w.e.f. 28.05.2014 due to her prolonged wilful absence from duty.

3. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had filed Writ Petition No.147/2020 challenging the order No.E-7962/96, dated 24.04.2020 by which her service was terminated by the respondent No.2. This Court vide order, dated 10.11.2022 had set aside and quashed the said termination order, dated 24.04.2020 directing the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner back into service. Accordingly, the respondent authority, vide order No. E-7976/1996, dated 08.06.2023 reinstated the service of the petitioner, but her service was placed under ‘dies non’ status as was on 25.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the ’dies non’ status the petitioner submitted a representation for alteration/modification of the order, dated 08.06.2023 vide representation, dated 13.06.2023. But, as the said representation has not been considered the petitioner again filed the connected WP(C) No.427/2023 on 25.08.2023, which is pending adjudication. However, on the same day, that is, on 25.08.2023 the impugned termination order, dated 25.08.2023 was issued against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said termination order the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that only after an inquiry a regular employee can be removed or dismissed from service and on the other hand, Rule 14(4)(a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules prescribes the mode of inquiry. However, the petitioner has been terminated from service on 25.08.2023 without any inquiry in accordance with the prescribed manner in law. Mr. Tari further submits that the petitioner was terminated by the respondent No. 2 by an order ,dated 24.04.2020, which was set aside and quashed by this Court by the judgment and order, dated 10.11.2022 and accordingly, she was reinstated in service. Accordingly, although the respondent authority reinstated her in service, her service has been placed under ‘dies non’ status as was on 25.05.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid status of ‘dies non’ she filed the connected WP(C) No. 427/2023 on 25.08.2020, which is pending adjudication and on the same day, the impugned termination order, dated 25.08.2023 has been issued against the petitioner without following the due procedure of law.

5. Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents fairly admits that the writ petitioner has been terminated from service without following the prescribed procedure and as such, the impugned termination order, dated 25.08.2023 may be set aside and quashed and a direction may be issued for reinstatement in service of the petitioner with liberty to draw up appropriate departmental proceeding at the discretion of the respondent authority.

6. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused records including the original D.P. File No. E- 7962/96/2023. Also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2.

7. It may be mentioned that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a state or holds a civil post under the Union or a state shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he/she has been informed of the charges against him/her and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.