GAHC010183172024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4599/2024

DHANJIT DAS

SON OF LATE KAMALA KANTA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GALIAHATI,

POLICE STATION- BARPETA, POLICE STATION- BARPETA,

DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781301.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,

GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

OF ASSAM

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 781006.

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)

ASSAM

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI- 781003.

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

BARPETA RURAL ROADS DIVISION

DISTRICT- BARPETA

ASSAM

PIN- 781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M MAHANTA, DIPTI CHAKRAVARTY,MR. T K MISRA,MS.

S MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

11.12.2025

1. Heard Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel PWD Department.

2. The petitioner before this Court at the relevant point in time was serving as a Lower Division Assistant under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Barpeta Rural Road Division.

3. By an order dated 19.05.2010, the petitioner was transferred at the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Pathsala Rural Roads Sub- Division. The petitioner claims to have preferred a representation dated 24.05.2010 before the Authority for re-consideration of his transfer order, which, however, was not considered by the Authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was anticipating consideration and reply on his representation from the Authorities concerned, by an Order dated 01.09.2012, the Chief Engineer appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to enquire into the matter of the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.2012, asking him to show cause on the charges of misconduct and violation of official integrity.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the documents and the list of witnesses, which are required to be furnished along with the show cause notice, were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, represented before the Authority seeking extension of time to furnish his reply. However, the Enquiry Authorities did not grant him further time to submit his reply. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry and thereafter, concluded the enquiry ex-parte the writ petitioner holding the charges to be proved against the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report also recommended imposition of penalty by the competent Authority under Rule 7(vi) or 7 (vii) of the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964.

5. Pursuant to the submission of the enquiry report by an order dated 28.12.2012, the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 7(vii) of the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964.The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed and therefore, being aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed.

6. The respondents have contested the case of the writ petitioner and have consistently maintained the stand that pursuant to the order of transfer dated 19.05.2010 issued to the writ petitioner, he deliberately refused to comply with the order and abstained from joining in his place of posting. In spite of notices issued, he declined to participate in the enquiry proceedings and left with no alternative, the respondent Authorities had attempted to serve notice by way of substituted service by publication of notice in local newspaper. The notices were also affixed in the Office as well as last post of posting as well as the place of residence of the petitioner, the address of which is available with the Department.

7. Nevertheless, the petitioner did not participate and therefore, the Enquiry