ORDER

25.07.2022 Date :

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr.

I. Riram, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-V series) by which he was terminated from the post of Goan Burah of Yollongripam village by the Deputy Commissioner West Kameng District, Bomdila.

Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel submits that prior to the termination of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have not given the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. He submits that although 15 (fifteen) days’ time was given to him to show cause while he should not be terminated, the petitioner due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic could not reply within the given time. He could submit his reply only on 08.05.2020. Further, without properly considering his reply, the petitioner was terminated from the said post vide the impugned order. The learned counsels also submits that the main ground for this termination was due to the complaint submitted by one Shri Phurpa Dorjee Kharma but now, the complainant has withdrawn his complaint against the petitioner by submitting a withdrawal application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner West Kameng District, Kalaktang on 14.02.2022. The learned counsel further, submits that the guidelines for appointment of Goan Burah which also includes the condition for termination of the year 2001 has now been replaced by the new guidelines of 2020 and the same was not taken into account before the petitioner was terminated. According to the learned counsel, as per the new guidelines, a the Goan Burah can be removed from the post after a meeting is convened by the concerned Administrative Officer of village elders in open Durbar and the motion for removal of Goan Burah is approved by at least two-third of the adult members of the village physically present to take the decision. The petitioner admittedly was removed by the impugned termination order dated 11.06.2020, issued on 15.06.2020, without considering the up-to-date guidelines and therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remanded back to the authority concerned for fresh consideration.

Mr. I. Riram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents filed on 24.01.2022, submits that the petitioner was given an opportunity of 15(fifteen) days to submit his show cause reply as to why he should not be terminated from the post of Goan Burah but he failed to submit any reply within this specified time. He submits that in fact the appointment of the petitioner was done without following due process of law and therefore, his appointment was only liable to be terminated.

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. From the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is seen that according to them, the petitioner has come before this Court for the second time. The first writ petition filed by him i.e., WP(C)/70(AP)/2020 was disposed of by quashing his termination order and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Bomdila for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner, Bomdila therefore issued a show case notice and gave sufficient time for replying the notice to the petitioner. Only thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from his post on 11.06.2020. This contention is found at paragraph No.7 at page Nos. 13 & 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents.

It is however, seen that WP(C)/70(AP)/2020, pertains to another person that is one Shri Kezang Norbu Namsa and not the present petitioner. The order of disposal passed by this Court dated 12.03.2020, has also been Annexed as Annexure-VII (series) by the writ petitioner in his writ petition. Therefore, it is seen that some mistake on f