MUKUT CHANDRA BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr A.K. Phukan and Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati Municipal Corporation.

(2.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.6.97, whereby the petitions: was forced to go on compulsory retirement. The petitioner joined the Nagaon Municipal Board in the year 1967, and while he was serving as Head Assistant, he was sent on compulsory retirement. The petitioner has challenged the same mainly on the following grounds: (a) The order of compulsory retirement was punitive in nature as the petitioner was involved in a disciplinary proceeding; (b)No public interest was involved; (c)No notice of three months pay was perved to the petitioner; (d)The impugned order has cast a social stigma.

(3.) The respondent Municipal Board has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that the impugned -order was neither related to any contemplated disciplinary proceeding nor it was punitive in nature. Moreover, no prior notice is required to be served and the petitioner was given all the benefits of retirement as per the rule. The entire service record was perused before passing the impugned order. It is further stated that the service record shows that the petitioner was charged with the offence of misbehaviour, violation of office rules and procedure, dereliction of duties, misappropriation of Board's fund, fraud, unauthorised absence to. He was placed under suspension earlier also and although there was recommendation for dismissal, but on humanitarian consideration, the petitioner was allowed to continue. The petitioner even dared to change the order of promotion passed by the competent authority by interpolation and overwriting without permission or intimation to the superior officer concerned. It is stated that considering the entire service record the petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest.