WP(C) 3407/2014. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 3407/2014 |
| Judgement Date | October 12, 2015 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
WP(C) No. 3407/2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN 12.10.2015
Heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
-
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 05.01.2012 and 26.06.2012, both passed by the Chairman, Biswanath Chariali Municipal Board, and further seeks a direction for his reinstatement in service with all consequential reliefs.
-
At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Tax Daroga in the Biswanath Chariali Municipal Board (Municipal Board). Petitioner was a regular employee in the service of the Municipal Board, having joined in the year 1985.
4 . Chairman of the Municipal Board issued a show-cause notice dated 17.01.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violation of office discipline. It was alleged that inspite of giving written undertaking to maintain office discipline, petitioner had remained absent from duties for which Municipal Board had suffered financial
WP(C) No. 3407 of 2014 Page 1 of 9
loss. In response thereto petitioner submitted his reply dated
24.01.2011. In his reply he stated that he felt disheartened when he was told that decision was already taken to compulsory retire him from his service. Because of his troubled mental condition, the indiscipline alleged had taken place. Petitioner had given an assurance that in future if it was found that he had indulged in any indisciplined behaviour, authority may impose any punishment including compulsory retirement.
-
Thereafter, the first impugned order dated 05.01.2012 was passed by the Chairman demoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Tax Daruga. After about six months, the second impugned order dated 26.06.2012 was passed by the Chairman imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
-
Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
-
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating that since petitioner was an employee of a Municipal Board, he would be governed by the provisions of Assam Municipal Act, 1956 , more particularly, Section 50 thereof. State has no role to play in this matter.
WP(C) No. 3407 of 2014 Page 2 of 9
-
Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit has stated that petitioner was initially appointed as Tax Collector on 27.09.1985. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Daroga on 03.10.1996 and finally promoted to the post of Tax Daroga on 29.08.2005. Further stand taken in the affidavit is that while performing his duty as Tax Daroga petitioner had...
To continue reading
Request your trial