Ram Kumar Pegu vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2225 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010005552014




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/557/2014

         RAM KUMAR PEGU
         S/OLT. MALBI PEGU CIRCLE OFFICER, BARAMA CIRCLE BARAMA UNDER
         REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL- JENGRAIMUKH, MAJULI
         DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781006.

         3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
          GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PERSONNEL A DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         4:THE STATE ENQUIRY OFFICER

         ASSAM
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-6. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
         ASSAM WHO HAS CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE WRIT
         PETITIONER.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6


            5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

             LAKHIMPUR
             NORTH LAKHIMPUR
             ASSAM.

            6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

             SONITPUR
             TEZPUR
             ASSAM.

            7:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

             REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
             JAWAHAR NAGAR
             GUWAHATI- 781022

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.H BURAGOHAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C BARUAH

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 28-06-2022 Heard Mr. AC Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 being the authorities under the Revenue and Disaster Management Department Government of Assam, Mr. JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 being the State Enquiry Officer, Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur as well as Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur respectively and Mr. A Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 being the Chief Page No.# 3/6

Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (A) Department.

2. In respect of certain conduct of the petitioner when he was the Circle Officer of Naoboicha Revenue Circle in the Lakhimpur district on an allegation that an amount of Rs.1,98,650/- was not handed over by him to his successor at the time of handing over the charge of the Circle on 22.10.1999, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964) read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India was instituted against the petitioner as per Show Cause Notice No.RLR.64/2000/21 dated 01.11.2000.

3. Later on, again on the allegation of certain conduct of the petitioner when he was the Circle Officer of Gohpur and also serving as the In-Charge Circle Officer, Helem Revenue Circle, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for the year 1998- 1999 and another amount of Rs.1,35,000/- which was received by him was not entered in the subsidiary Circle Cash Book of Helem Revenue Circle, another disciplinary proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 read with Article 311 was issued against the petitioner as per Show Cause Notice No.RLR.88/2001/99 dated 08.04.2002. It is stated that in respect of both the aforementioned disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner a common enquiry was held and on the basis of such common enquiry report the order impugned dated 30.03.2010 was passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (A) Department. By the said order the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service.

Page No.# 4/6

4. The very first paragraph in the order dated 30.03.2010 goes to show that two departmental proceedings, one vide show cause notice dated 01.11.2000 and the other vide show cause notice dated 08.04.2002 were initiated against the petitioner on the allegations of misappropriation of Rs.1,96,450/- and Rs.1,75,000/- respectively. Accordingly, based upon the findings that had been arrived in a common enquiry report that may have been made in respect of the two departmental proceedings, the petitioner was given the penalty of removal from service. This writ petition is instituted on the grievance that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in conducting the enquiry and arriving at the order of punishment are not sustainable under the law.

5. Ordinarily, when two separate proceedings are initiated against a delinquent in respect of two separate incidents, the procedure should be to carry forward the proceedings independent of each other with separate enquiry proceedings and thereupon separate order of penalty be imposed. It may be permissible if the nature of allegations are same in the two proceedings and where one of the proceedings came to an end and the delinquent was held guilty, the said aspect can also be taken into account while arriving at a later decision. But at the same time, it would not mean that merely because two proceedings are initiated against the same person for two different incidents, although the nature of allegation may be same, therefore, from the stage of enquiry itself it would be a common enquiry and thereafter a common order would be passed in respect of the two proceedings. We are not expressing any view on the quantum of punishment that was inflicted on the petitioner, considering the nature of the allegation and possibly the same punishment could have been inflicted in respect of either of the two proceedings had it been Page No.# 5/6

conducted independently. But at the same time, procedural aberration of amalgamating the two departmental proceedings in respect of two different incidents at two different time, and, thereafter, amalgamate the proceeding into one process would be unacceptable under the law. Two different incidents pertaining to two different times may involve separate materials on record as well as separate witnesses, which alone may require two separate proceedings to be conducted.

6. Accordingly, from the stage of common enquiry onwards, the proceedings against the petitioner are interfered and the matter stands remanded back to the disciplinary authority in the two proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 01.11.2000 and the show cause notice dated 08.04.2002 respectively and to bring the same to its logical end.

7. It is stated that the petitioner had retired from service and therefore, the question of keeping the petitioner under suspension would not arise. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to bring an end to the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE Page No.# 6/6

Comparing Assistant