Anjana Phukan and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2:THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL

¶12

ASSAM CIRCLE MEGHDOOT BHAWAN PAN BAZAR GHY.-781001.

¶13

3:THE INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES

¶14

PATHSHALA SUB-DIVISION PATHSHALA BARPETA ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

¶17

NALBARI ASSAM.

¶18

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

¶19

TIHU REVENUE CIRCLE NALBARI ASSAM

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P N GOSWAMI, MR.P MAHANTA,MR.R KAMAN,MS.J SAIKIA,MS.Z ANJUM,MR.M K DAS

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH (STATE COUNSEL), ASSTT.S.G.I.,C.G.C.,MR.H GUPTA(R- 1,2&3)

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶24

ORDER

¶25

13.02.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

¶27

The order assailed in the present writ petition is the communication dated 25.01.2017 issued by the Office of the Inspector of Post Offices to the Circle Officer, Tihu Revenue Circle. By the said communication, the Circle Revenue Officer was informed that the petitioner had allegedly misappropriated Government money amounting to Rs. 16 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was yet to be recovered, in terms of the loss sustained by the Department as intimated by the SDO, Nalbari, Barpeta Division. Accordingly, a request was made to the Circle Officer, Tihu Revenue Circle, to furnish the particulars of the landed property standing in the name of the petitioner and her family members.

¶28

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

amount alleged in the impugned communication was based on an enquiry conducted by the respondent department against one the petitioner. Pursuant to the said departmental enquiry one of the petitioner was imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal was issued on 12.01.2015.

¶31

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that while the communication directing the Tihu Revenue Circle to furnish details of the petitioner’s and landed properties of her family has been assailed in the present writ petition, the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. He submits that Original Application No. 317 of 2015 was disposed of by the Tribunal on 13.11.2017, whereby the order dated 12.01.2015 was set aside and the respondents were directed to conduct a de novo enquiry into the allegations against the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the enquiry was conducted and has culminated in the passing of a fresh order dated 15.01.2026, whereby a fresh penalty has been imposed upon one of the petitioner.

¶32

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of subsequent developments, the communication dated 25.01.2017 may no longer survive to require a consideration. He submits that the findings which formed the basis for quantification of the alleged recovery have already been interfered with by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶33

In that view of the matter, and considering that the letter dated 25.01.2017 merely sought details of the landed property standing in the name of the petitioner and her family members, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for at this stage. However, since the impugned order of termination and the calculation forming the basis of the alleged recovery have been set aside by the Tribunal, any further proceeding pursuant to the

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

communication dated 25.01.2017 shall have to be subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry and the consequential orders passed therein.

¶36

Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, has submitted that any recovery, if at all, pursuant to the fresh order dated 15.01.2026 shall be undertaken afresh by the respondents, in accordance with law, if any recovery is sought to be made against the petitioner.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents need not proceed with attempt at recovery pursuant to the letter dated 25.01.2017, if any. Accordingly, it is directed that the Circle Revenue Officer, Tihu Revenue Circle, shall not proceed any further with the request made under the communication dated 25.01.2017.

¶38

It has been submitted before this Court that a fresh penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners shall, as a matter of course, be at liberty to challenge the fresh orders passed against them, if so advised, in accordance with law. The disposal of the present writ petition shall not affect the petitioners’ rights in any manner whatsoever.

¶39

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Anjana Phukan and Anr. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Phukan and Anr. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjan Kumar Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pulak Das Vs the State of Assam

Md. Ersad Alam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Riva Borkataky Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rehana Akter Choudhury @ Rahena Aktar Choudhury Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and Anr.

Abinash Barman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.