P.K.MUSAHARY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.
(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order dated 25.08.2008 issued by the Director, Rural Development Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and has prayed for setting aside the same inasmuch as the termination order was issued without initiating departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner has been serving as Chowkidar in the Office of Directorate of Rural Development since 1994. In the night of 25th July, 2008, while the petitioner was not on duty due to illness, a burglary took place. Again in the night of 22nd August, 2008, another burglary took place while he was on duty. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.08.2008 issued by the respondent Director, Rural Development Department, Itanagar, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10(1) of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, w.e.f. 22.08.2008. In the said order, he was asked to explain as to why the aforementioned incidents took place in a span of one month. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.2008 stating inter alia that in the night of 22.08.2008, he was present in the office premises but "remained sleeping in the office room near the main entrance" and "he could not hear the sound of breaking the small lock of the iron grill and he neither heard any sort of noise of breaking lock of cash room". On receipt of the said explanation, the respondent Director, Rural Development Department, Itanagar, vide impugned order dated 11.11.2008 terminated the petitioner from service with retrospective effect i.e. from 22.08.2008. In the aforesaid termination order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of one month in lieu of notice at the same rate which he was drawing immediately before termination of his service. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned termination order dated 25.08.2008 is stigmatic in nature and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that no departmental proceeding was initiated to enquire into the allegation of negligence of duty or misconduct on the part of the petitioner under the provision of Rule 10(1) of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He also submits that the respondent authorities are required to draw up departmental proceeding against the delinquent before awarding any punishment. The procedures prescribed in the aforesaid Rules, having not been followed, the impugned termination order, according to Mr. Singh, is arbitrary, illegal and unauthorized and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he cites the case of Sanjoy Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors., reported in 2006 (3) GLT 47.
(3.) MS. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that the petitioner's service was never regularized for his irregularities and he was working as Chowkidar on temporary basis and as such, no departmental proceeding was required to be initiated for removing him from service. In the present case, according to MS. Deka, the provision under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, is applicable and the petitioner has been legally terminated under the said Rules. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been serving as Chowkidar for more than 14 years since 1994 although his services were not regularized. The order dated 22.08.2008 placing the petitioner under suspension attaches allegation of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in carrying out his duties and as such, he was asked to explain his conduct. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice but the respondent authorities did not inform the petitioner as to whether his explanation was accepted or not. If his explanation was not found satisfactory, the respondent authorities could have initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner but without doing so, the impugned termination order dated 25.08.2008 was issued. There is no denial of the fact that the departmental proceeding was not initiated. It is to be examined as to whether the respondent authorities could abandon the departmental proceeding in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case. It is also to be examined as to whether the impugned termination order is simpliciter or stigmatic.;