Partha Pratim Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3465 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Partha Pratim Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 25 February, 2025

Author: Suman Shyam

Bench: Suman Shyam

                                                             Page No.# 1/19

GAHC010155842023




                                                       undefined

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/4061/2023

         PARTHA PRATIM SAIKIA
         S/O- SRI SARAT CHANDRA SAIKIA,
         VILL. NIZ GERUA, P.O.- GERUA GAON,
         P.S.- BHURAGAON, DIST.- MORIGAON,
         ASSAM, PIN- 782121.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM,
         PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER
          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
          JURIPAR
          SIXMILE
          GUWAHATI-22.

         3:THE DIRECTOR
         THE STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
          G.S. ROAD
          KHANAPARA
          GUWAHATI-22.

         4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
          DRDA
          MORIGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788004.
                                                                          Page No.# 2/19

            5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             MORIGAON
            ASSAM.

            6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
             MORIGAON.

            7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             DIST.- MORIGAON
            ASSAM.

            8:THE TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

            VILLAGE- TULSHIBARI
            P.O.- TENGAGURI

            DISTRICT- MORIGAON
            ASSAM- 782127

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR M J QUADIR, MS S AHMED,MR S S ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM




             Linked Case : WP(C)/4182/2023

            RAJU KUMAR BORDOLOI
            S/O- LATE BANESWAR BORDOLOI

            VILL- BATABORI
            P.O.- DEWAGURI

            P.S.- LAHARIGHAT
             DIST.- MORIGAON

            ASSAM
            PIN- 782121.


             VERSUS
                                                          Page No.# 3/19

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE COMMISSIONER
 PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
JURIPAR
 SIXMILE
 GUWAHATI-22.

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
MORIGAON
ASSAM- 788004.

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
ASSAM.

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
MORIGAON.

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM.

7:THE TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

VILLAGE- TULSHIBORI

P.O.- TENGAGURI
 DIST.- MORIGAON

ASSAM- 782127.
------------

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

Page No.# 4/19

Linked Case : WP(C)/4277/2023

SAIFUL ISLAM S/O- HORMUJ ALI VILL.- ADITPUR P.O. GUNIALGURI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT JURIPAR SIXMILE GUWAHATI.

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

DRDA MORIGAON ASSAM-788004.

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD MORIGAON.

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

7:THE SECRETARY Page No.# 5/19

TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT VILL.- TULSHIBORI P.O. TENGAGURI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM-782127.

------------

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/106/2024

PRABHAT KUMAR KALITA S/O- LATE DHIRESWAR KALITA

R/O- VILLAGE SAMAGURI

P.O AND P.S- SAMAGURI DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM COMMISSIONERATE OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037

3:THR PROJECT DIRECTOR O/O THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 6/19

4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER O/O THE LUMDING DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BAMUNGAON HOJAI PIN-782435

5:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION ASSAM CUM OFFICER IN CHARGE ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH POLICE STATION SRIMANTAPUR GUWAHATI-32

------------

Advocate for : MR. T J MAHANTA Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/666/2024

SURAJ BORA SON OF SRI NABIN CHANDRA BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAYANPAM P.S. JAMUNAMUKH NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782428

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037

3:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LUMDING DEVELOPMENT BLOCK Page No.# 7/19

LUMDING HOJAI ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MR A DAS Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/4221/2023

MD. NEYAMAT ALI S/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM

VILL- TENGAGURI KACHARIGAON

P.O- TENGAGURI

P.S- LAHORIGHAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782121

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JURIPAR SIXMILE GUWAHATI- 781022

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA MORIGAON ASSAM

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 8/19

MORIGAON ASSAM

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MORIGAON ZILA PARISHAD MORIGAON ASSAM

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAHORIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM

7:THE TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

VILLAGE TULSHIBORI

P.O- TENGAGURI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127

------------

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/4267/2023

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE HUSSAIN ALI

VILL- KUPATIMARI

P.O.- BHURAGAON

P.S.- BHURAGAON

DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782121.

VERSUS Page No.# 9/19

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT JURIPAR SIXMILE GUWAHATI-22.

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA MORIGAON ASSAM- 788004.

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM .

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD MORIGAON.

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM.

7:THE SECRETARY TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT VILLAGE- TULSHIBORI

P.O.- TULSHIBORI

DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM.

------------

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

Page No.# 10/19

Linked Case : WP(C)/4776/2023

RAKIBUL KHAN SON OF MUSHARAF HUSSAIN KHAN

RESIDENT OF NAGBANDHA LAHARIGHAT

DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM

PIN- 782106.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI- 37

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT G.S. ROAD KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI- 781022.

4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD MORIGAON ASSAM.

------------

Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS Page No.# 11/19

Linked Case : WP(C)/6627/2023

MRINAL KANTI SARKAR S/O LATE BIMAL CHANDRA SARKAR R/O VILL-GAURIPUR

P.S.-GAURIPUR DIST-DHUBRI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

2:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD DHUBRI

------------

Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

Dates of hearing : 28.01.2025 & 25.02.2025.

Date of judgment :      25.02.2025.
                                                                             Page No.# 12/19

                              JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka,

Mr. M. J. Quadir, Mr. A. K. Baruah and Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the

writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing

Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam representing the

official respondents. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam has

appeared on behalf of the State.

2. The question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same,

which is "Can the service of a contractual employee be terminated without issuing a

show cause notice when the order of termination is ex-facie stigmatic?" The above

issue, pertaining to contractual employees of the Panchayat & Rural Development

Department, had been gone into in great details in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya

vs. State of Assam and 6 others [WP(C) No.2977/2023] whereby, it was held by this

Court that such a course of action would be impermissible in the eyes of law.

Notwithstanding the same, it appears that the departmental authorities have once

again adopted a similar approach for terminating the services of the present writ

petitioners, who were engaged under the department on contractual basis. The facts

and circumstances involved in WP(C) No.4061/2023, are referred to herein below for

the purpose of addressing the legal issues involved in all these writ petitions.

3. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4061/2023 was engaged as an Accountant-

cum- Computer Operator Gelabil Gaon Panchayat of Golaghat South Development

Block vide engagement letter dated 29.12.2014. His appointment was on contractual Page No.# 13/19

basis for a period of 6 (six) months. However, after the expiry of the period of six

months the petitioner continued in service thus, signaling an automatic renewal of

the contract beyond six months. On 02.01.2016 the petitioner had entered into

another contractual engagement for a further period of six months. In between, the

petitioner had been transferred from one place to another. However, while serving as

Gaon panchayat Coordinator under the Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, some

dissatisfied persons of the Gaon Panchayat had lodged a complaint before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon alleging that the petitioner had indulged in

malpractices by forging job cards and using the name of different persons for

withdrawing money and misappropriating the same. Based on such complaint,

Bhelowguri P.S. Case No.29/2023 was registered under Sections 120-B/420/409/468/34

of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2023 but was subsequently released

on bail on 12.06.2023. After his release on bail, the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural

Development Department, Assam issued the impugned order dated 28.06.2023

terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner.

4. In the order of termination, it has been clearly mentioned that the arrest and

subsequent police custody of the petitioner had become embarrassing to his

employer. Accordingly, his services were terminated. However, the order of

termination dated 28.06.2023 was admittedly not preceded by any show cause

notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court inter-alia contending the

order of termination from service is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the same ought

to be preceded by a show cause notice. To drive home the above contention, the

learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon the decision of this Court Page No.# 14/19

rendered in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra).

5. The learned departmental counsel Mr. S. Dutta, on the other hand, has

opposed the prayer made in the batch of writ petitions by contending that since it is

a contractual employment and considering the fact that the contract agreement

did permit termination of service with one months notice, no fault can be found with

the order of termination merely because the petitioner was not served with any show

cause notice. According to Mr. Dutta, the arrest and police custody of the petitioner,

in all these writ petitions, is not the foundation but the motive for the orders of

termination and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case

of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly &

another reported in (1986) 2 SCR 278 there is no justifiable ground for this Court to

interfere with the impugned orders of termination. In support of his above argument

Mr. Dutta has also relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court :-

1. (2004) 11 SCC 743 [State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh]

2. (2005) 7 SCC 518 (State of Haryana v. Satyendra Singh Rathore]

3. (1953) 1 SCC 420 [ Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India]

4. 1962 SCC OnLine SC 115 [Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Dutta Choudhury]

5. (2019) 6 SCC 250 [Rajaasthan SRTC v. Paramjeet Singh]

6. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have also gone

through the materials available on record.

Page No.# 15/19

7. The facts involved in all these writ petitions are not disputed. It is the admitted

position of fact that the services of all the writ petitioners, who were originally

engaged on contractual basis under the Panchayat & Rural Development

Department, were terminated merely on the ground that they were all arrested and

detained in police custody in connection with complaints lodged against them.

However, the respective orders of termination from service were issued without

serving any prior notice. It is not the case of the department that any criminal charge

has been established against any of the petitioners. Since the learned departmental

counsel has placed heavy reliance on the termination clause in the contract

agreement to submit that since the clause in the contract itself permitted such a

recourse, no fault can be found in the order of termination, I deem it appropriate to

reproduce the relevant clause i.e. Clause 12 in the contract as hereunder :-

"12. Termination of Contract :- The Employer reserves the right to terminate the hired agreement at any point of time if it is found that the services rendered by the hired employee is not satisfactory, or if it is found that any declaration of information furnished by him/her proves to be false or willfully suppressed, or if there is any breach of any of the terms and condition of this terms of Contractual Engagement, or if the hired employee is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Employer in this regard shall be final and binding on the contractual employee and shall not be subject to challenge."

8. As has been noted herein above, a similar issue came up for consideration

before this Court in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). It was a case where a Page No.# 16/19

computer assistant appointed under the Panchayat and Rural Development

Department on contractual basis was terminated on the ground that an enquiry in

connection with alleged misappropriation of fund under the MGNREGA and PMAY-G

was initiated against the employee. Contending that the order of termination was

stigmatic in nature, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C)

No.2977/2023. After taking note of the facts of the case, this Court had allowed the

writ petition by setting aside the order of termination from service with a direction to

reinstate the petitioner in service in a time bound manner. Liberty was, however,

given to the departmental authorities to proceed against the petitioner afresh in

accordance with law by serving prior notice indicating the specific charge brought

against him, if so advised. The observations made by this Court in Ali Ahmed

Barbhuiya (supra), relevant for the purpose of this case, are reproduced herein below

for ready reference :-

"It is no doubt correct that in case of a contractual engagement, the terms and conditions of the contract would govern by the service conditions of the employee. In the present case, the contract agreement signed by the petitioner does have a clause permitting termination of the contract at any point of time if the services rendered by the contractual staff was not found to be satisfactory. However, what is to be noted herein that bare perusal of the impugned order of termination demonstrates on the face of the record that the same was issued on the basis of findings of the enquiry proceeding conducted behind the back of the petitioner wherein, it had been projected that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 30/10/2021 is not only based on allegation of misconduct but the same is also stigmatic on the face of the records. In other words, the impugned order of termination dated 30/10/2021 was founded on Page No.# 17/19

allegation of misconduct. However, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter. Therefore, it is a clear case where the respondents have acted in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

The order of termination from service issued to the petitioner has the trappings of an order of dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, such an order could not have been issued without giving the employee an opportunity of being heard, even if the same pertains to a temporary and / or contractual employee. This is for the simple reason that such an action, besides causing serious prejudice to the interest of the employee, would also have a bearing on the prospect of his future employments."

9. In another decision rendered by a coordinate Bench in the case of Sailendra

Bora Vs. State of Assam & 2 others [WP(C) No.6680/2022] similar view was taken by the

learned Single Judge whereby, the order of termination served upon the contractual

employee, which was found to be stigmatic, was interfered with by the Court on the

ground that the same was not preceded by an opportunity of hearing.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case involved in this

batch of writ petitions this Court does not find any justifiable ground to take a

different view as compared to the view taken in Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra) and

Sailendra Bora (supra). Moreover, in another decision of this Court rendered in the

case of Mrigen Kalita Vs. North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies Training

and Research & others reported in 2012 (4) GLT 686 the learned Single Judge has

categorically held that even if an employment is of temporary nature, the principle of

natural justice cannot altogether be given a gobye more so when the order of

termination is accompanied by circumstances carrying a stigma against the Page No.# 18/19

employee. After going through the decision rendered in the case of Mrigen Kalita

(supra) this Court is further fortified to reaffirm the law laid down in the case of Ali

Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra).

11. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance on the

decision of this Court in Jan Saikia Vs. State of Assam and others [WP(C)4632/2023]

whereby the learned Single Judge had observed that since the order of termination

was in accordance with the clause contained in the contract agreement, the same

was permissible. However, I find that in the decision rendered in Jan Saikia (supra),

the learned Single Judge has not considered as to what would be the impact of

termination from service without issuing a show cause notice when the order of

termination itself is stigmatic in nature. Moreover, the decision in the case of Jan

Saikia (supra) also appears to have been rendered without taking note of the law

laid down in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra), which projected a completely

contrary view.

12. Coming to the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned departmental

counsel, in none of those cases the question as to whether a stigmatic order of

termination on a contractual employee could be issued without complying with the

principles of natural justice was the subject matter of discussion. If that be so, the ratio

laid down in those decisions would, in the opinion of this Court, be of no assistance to

the learned departmental counsel in the facts of the present case.

13. For the reasons stated herein above, all these writ petitions succeed and are

hereby allowed. The impugned orders of termination involved in the respective writ Page No.# 19/19

petitions stand set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate all the writ

petitioners back in service within three weeks from today. Subject to reinstatement, it

would be open for the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioners,

individually, after complying with the due process of law including the adherence to

the principles of natural justice, in which event it would be open for the authorities to

take further consequential action in the matter as may be deemed fit and proper

under the law.

With the above observation, all the writ petitions stands disposed of.

The parties to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

T U Choudhury/SrPS

Comparing Assistant