MD. SIRAJ AHAMED Vs. NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the 3rd journey of the petitioner to this Court challenging the order at Annexure -A/13 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing him from service as well as the order at Annexure -A/15 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was serving as Field Assistant in the respondents' office, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 07.09.1982 on the allegation that he had been asked to collect 100 bags of cement from Loktak Main Store to Leimatak. However, the cement did not reach at Leimatak. The petitioner was directed to give reply within four days to the above allegations. Again by orders dated 21.08.1982 and 22.10.1982, the respondents framed charge on the basis of the above allegations and sought for a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner replied denying all the allegations. After receipt of the reply the Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service by order dated 04.10.1982. Again on re -consideration, the order of removal from service was recalled and by order dated 22.10.1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 04.10.1982. The petitioner was directed to show cause again on the allegation that he received 103 bags of cement delivered from Valve House Sub -Store but did not deliver the same at the destination. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the allegations, but by order dated 04.07.1983 he was removed from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal was not considered, as a result of which the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 547 of 1998 for quashing the order of removal from service. The said writ application was disposed of on 25.06.1988 directing the petitioner to file a fresh appeal enclosing with other earlier appeals and the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order within a specific time. In compliance of the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was not disposed of and a contempt petition was filed. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected on 10.11.1999.

(3.) MR . S. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of order passed by the Gauhati High Court, copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and he was asked to give a reply. We, therefore directed the learned senior counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi, appearing for the respondents to produce the records of the proceedings. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel that no such report is available on record except a preliminary report. We also find from the record that no regular proceeding appointing an enquiry officer was undertaken. Under such circumstances, we have no other option but to set aside the orders at Annexure -A/13 and Annexure -A/15 respectively. The Disciplinary Authority is to start denovo proceeding by appointing an Enquiry Officer and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.