STATE OF ASSAM Vs. HALADHAR KALITA GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal at the instance of the State of Assam is connected with the Writ Appeal No. 405/96 preferred by the Gauhati High Court. Both these appeals arising out of judgment dated 30.1.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1699/94 thereby making the following directions :

(2.) Few basic facts so far as they are necessary for disposal of this appeals may now be noted. The writ petitioner respondent Shri Haladhar Kalita was appointed as Judicial Magistrate and at the relevant time posted at Tinsukia. A disciplinary enquiry was instituted against him on as many as 7 charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty of all the charges except Charge No. 4. The High Court accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the delinquent officer who sumilted his reply to the show cause notice which was considered by the High Court and finally on such consideration, the High Court recommended his removal from service. Thereafter, by order dated 22.3.91 passed by the Governor of the State, he was removed from service.

(3.) The said Judicial Officer preferred an appeal under Rule 15 of the Assam Services (Displline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 before the Governor, who allowed the appeal and modified the punishment from removal from service to that of withholding of promotion for a period of 2 (two) years coupled with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner appellant in service. This order was the subject matter of challenge in Civil Rule No. 1185/90 and the High Court held that such an appeal cannot be legally disposed of without consultation and recommendation of the High Court. In the meantime, the State of Assam preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court in Civil Rule No. 1185/90. However, a petition was filed by the Judicial Officer seeking a direction to supply him a copy of the order dated 30.3.92 which was directed to be supplied by order dated 27.9.93 in the writ petition filed by the Judicial Officer. It was followed by a Misc. case and a modification was made in the said order dated 30.3.92. Aggrieved by the same, the Judicial Officer again filed yet another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1699/94 complaining non-implementation of the Governor's order dated 13.3.92 to reinstate him in service. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 30.1.96 made the direction as quoted above. It is against this judgment that both the State as well as the High Court has preferred these two appeals.