INTAZ ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Roy, learned State counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 4.7.2002 (Annexure C to the writ petition) whereby their services as Muster Roll Workers under the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barpeta Division, Barpeta were directed to be terminated on the ground that they were arrested by the police in connection with a criminal case. The petitioners claimed that they were appointed as Muster Roll Workers in the years 1986 and 1988 respectively and had been discharging their duties with sincerely and honesty to the satisfaction of all concerned authorities. On 7.6.2002 they were arrested and taken into judicial custody on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 4.6.2002 which was lodged and registered as Barpeta Police Station Case No. 230/2002 under Section 396/397 IPC. The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. In course of the alleged incident, one Nikunja Pathak @ Dhanonjay Pathak who was the Section Assistant of Nagaon Section under the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barpeta Division died and another Sri Nibaran Pathak was sustained serious the injuries subsequently in course of the investigation, a diary maintained by the deceased was seized in which the names of the persons to whom the deceased used to lend money were mentioned. Incidentally the names of the present petitioners, were also found therein. It was on that suspicion, the petitioners were arrested. They were, however, released on bail on 6.7.2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta on perusal of the case diary. In the meantime, in view of the arrest to the petitioners in the criminal case, their services were terminated as referred to above.

(3.) MR . J. Roy learned State counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the above prayer and has submitted that the petitioners were admittedly Muster Roll Workers and that they have no right as such to claim reinstatement. Moreover, as they were found involved in the criminal case, their services were rightly terminated and as the investigation of the criminal case is pending, no direction ought to be issued by this Court as prayed for.