Partly allowed

Biswa Kamal Duarah v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2019WP(C)/2591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

[[Exactly five years after retirement in the same office]. The Gauhati High Court directed the authorities to conclude the pending departmental enquiry within six months, noting non-cooperation by the retired petitioner cannot be a ground for indefinite prolongation. Failure to do so deems the enquiry closed, entitling him to full retiral and pensionary benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Answer: The authorities directed to conclude departmental enquiry within six months; deemed closed if not done, petitioner entitled to full retiral/pension benefits within three months.

Biswa Kamal Duarah Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010079722018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2591/2018

¶5

1:BISWA KAMAL DUARAH

¶6

S/O LATE MANIK DUARAH, PERMANENT R/O VILL- MORANGI MOTORGAON, PO MARANGI, DIST. GOLAGHAT, PIN-785702

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T) UPPER ASSAM ZONE KACHARIGHAT GUWAHATI-1

¶12

4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS NORTHERN ASSAM CIRCLE TEZPUR-784001

¶13

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SONITPUR WEST DIVISION TEZPUR-784001

¶14

6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29

¶17

7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. A DEVI

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AG

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 03-06-2019

¶23

Heard Mrs. A. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Mr. G. Baishya, learned standing counsel respondent No. 6 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 7.

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 14.07.2017 issued on the eve of his retirement and also for grant of full pension and other retiral benefits.

¶25

It is a case of the petitioner by order dated 22.08.2017, the petitioner who was serving as Deputy Ranger at Chaduar Range was informed that as per his service book, the date of superannuation of the petitioner is 30.11.2017.

¶26

However, on the eve of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the authorities by invoking power under Rule 6 (1) (a) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 on the ground of dereliction of duties, illegal felling of trees and connivance in the commission of illegalities in and around Gamani Beat area.

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2017, on which date the petitioner was served with the show cause notice consisting of three charges. The aforesaid charges read as follows:

¶29

(i) Charge No. 1 : Derelict of Govt. Duty

¶30

(ii) Charge No. 2 : Connivance in the Commission of Illegality (iii) Charge No. 3: Loss of Government Money

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that firstly, the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case just on the eve of his retirement merely by deny the retiral and other pensionary benefits.

¶32

This petition however, has been resisted on the ground that the authorities had initiated a departmental preceding against him, for which he was directed to appear before the authority.

¶33

It has been submitted that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

¶34

This Court is of the view that once the departmental enquiry has been initiated, the authorities are expected to conclude the same within a period of six months as provided under the relevant service rules. However, if for any reason, the same could not be concluded, the authorities may extend the same. However, it cannot be indefinitely prolonged.

¶35

In the present case what has been seen is that the departmental enquiry was sought to be initiated by framing the charges on 30.11.2017 and till date there is no progress in the departmental enquiry. If the petitioner is not cooperating with the departmental enquiry, the authority will be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law including by proceeding ex party, but cannot keep it pending indefinitely for his appearance.

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

As such, non cooperation of the petitioner cannot be a ground for not completing the departmental enquiry, more so when the petitioner had already retired from service and awaiting the retiral and pensionary benefits.

¶38

Accordingly the respondent are directed to conclude departmental enquiry within a period of six months from today.

¶39

Considering the charge leveled against the petitioner, as mentioned above, this Court is of the view that there should not be difficulty on the part of the authority to conclude the same within the aforesaid period, however, for any germane or genuine reason, the authority may seek extension of time for conclusion of the departmental enquiry beyond six months by making necessary application before this Court.

¶40

If the departmental enquiry is not concluded within the aforesaid period or such extended time as may be granted by this Court, it shall be deemed by the authorities are not keen to pursue the enquiry initiated against him and accordingly, the same shall be deemed to have been closed and accordingly, thereafter the petitioner will be granted all the retiral and pensionary benefits in accordance with law, which exercise shall be undertaken within a further period of three months from the date of closure of the departmental enquiry as mentioned above.

¶41

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Biswa Kamal Duarah v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswa Kamal Duarah v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabir Roy Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Chandra Kanta Goala and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sashiprabha Devi Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Prabin Ch. Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Chand Mahammad Ali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sarbeswar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.