RADHAKANTA GOALA AND ANR Vs. KAHIRUL ISLAM HAZARI AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Radhakanta Goala And Anr
Kahirul Islam Hazari And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajit Singh, C.J. -
(1.) Mr.Mu Mahmud and Ms.C Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Ms.P Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
(2.) Petitioner No.1 is President and Member of some local committees. Petitioner No.2 claims himself to be a social worker. In the present Public Interest Litigation, their target is Respondent No.1, who is posted as District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj.
According to the petitioners, despite Respondent No.1 having been transferred to another District Dhemaji, vide order dated 29.12.2017, he is illegally being allowed to continue at Karimganj. The petitioners have also alleged that Respondent No.1 is involved in corruption and a criminal case has been registered against him at Police Station Karimganj for offences under Sections 448,353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for an enquiry into the matter.
(3.) The State Government, in reply, has averred that vide order dated 15.11.2017, Respondent No.1 was given additional charge of District Elementary Education Officer. In the result, vide order dated 16.12.2017, Arup Kumar Brahma, the then District Elementary Education Officer, was directed to be relieved. Arup Kumar Brahma protested against his relieving from the charge of District Elementary Education Officer and very reluctantly handed over the charge to Respondent No.1 on 21.11.2017. And, on the same day, he also lodged one First Information Report against Respondent No.1 at Police Station Karimganj for offences under Sections 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 then had to apply for bail, which was allowed by the Sessions Court, vide order dated 21.12.2017.
The State has also averred that although vide order dated 29.12.2017, Respondent No.1 was transferred to Dhemaji, he could not be relieved because of the work of NRC assigned to him. Not only this, the allegations made against Respondent No.1 was enquired by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who, in his report dated 6.2.2018 (Annexure-4), found the same to be false. The State has further stated that vide order dated 31.3.2018, the transfer of Respondent No.1 to Dhemaji has also been cancelled. According to the State Government, the petitioners have filed the present public interest litigation with an ulterior motive because Arup Kumar Brahma from whom charge of District Elementary Education Officer was withdrawn and handed over to Respondent No.1 is a close relative of Petitioner No.2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.