Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010052652017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7325/2017 PUTUL GOGOI S/O- LATE RATNESWAR GOGOI, R/O- VILL- TAMULICHINGA, BHARALIGAON, P.S- TEOK, P.O- TEOK, PIN- 785682, DIST- JORHAT VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN, ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORP. and ORS PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-8 2:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASTC PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-8 3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ASTC JORHA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A S T C, Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 21.04.2026 Heard Mr. J Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Dr. A Chamuah, Learned Standing Counsel, ASTC. 2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 22.12.2015, issued by the Managing Director, ASTC, Assam, removing the petitioner from his services as a Trainee Driver with the Corporation. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 21.07.2017, rejecting the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, against the said order dated 22.12.2015. 3. The facts in brief, requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues, arising in the present Writ Petition, is noticed as under : The Petitioner, herein, on his selection as a Trainee Driver, was appointed in the Assam State Transport Corporation, (hereinafter, referred to as the Corporation), and he had joined his service w.e.f 17.03.2011. The Petitioner was required to operate a reserve trip from Chipahikhola, Jorhat to Guwahati on 23.05.2015. The said trip was, with regard to the plying of Congress Workers, who were to participate in a Government function, to be held on 23.05.2015, at Sarusajai Stadium, Guwahati. The Petitioner, accordingly, was the driver of the bus bearing registration No. AS-20-1509, plying the said passengers to Guwahati. For the purpose of facilitating the petitioner to undertake the said trip successfully, the Station Superintendent of the Jorhat Station of the Corporation had handed over an amount of Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only), to the petitioner, for the purpose of refueling, if so required, in course of the said trip, he was to undertake. The Petitioner Page No.# 3/11 undertook the said trip and on conclusion of the same, had submitted a bill of purchasing of diesel oil for the vehicle in question, during its trip for the whole of the amount as handed over to him, i.e. Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only). On an allegation surfacing that the Petitioner had not actually refueled the vehicle, in question, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension, vide an order dated 23.06.2015, pending drawal of the departmental proceeding against him. The Respondent authorities had, thereafter, instituted proceedings, in the matter, against the Station Superintendent of the Jorhat Station of the Corporation, who was also placed under suspension for the same allegations that were so made against the Petitioner, herein. It is projected that the Petitioner was, thereafter, vide a communication dated 08.10.2015, required to appear before the Senior Divisional Superintendent of the Corporation at Jorhat, for a personal hearing on 13.10.2015, pertaining to his suspension, with regard to the allegations of his plying the vehicle No. AS/20-1509, on 23.05.2015. The petitioner is found to have appeared for the said hearing and his statement is also found to have been recorded, therein. The Enquiry Officer i.e. Senior Divisional Superintendent of the respondent Corporation at Jorhat, thereafter, vide a communication dated 13.10.2015, forwarded his Enquiry Report to the Senior Deputy General Manager of the Corporation at Guwahati. In the said Enquiry Report, nothing incriminating was brought on record against the petitioner, herein. Thereafter, basing on the said materials coming on record, the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, vide an impugned order dated 22.12.2015, proceeded to remove the petitioner from the services of the Corporation. The Petitioner preferred an appeal, in the matter, before the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, on 30.12.2015. The same not being considered, the petitioner had Page No.# 4/11 approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 2424/2016. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2017, directing the consideration of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, in the matter. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman of the Corporation, vide order dated 21.07.2017, proceeded to reject the said appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, thereby, affirming the order, passed by the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, removing the petitioner from the services of the Corporation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the Writ Petition. 4. Mr. J Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the removal of the petitioner was not preceded by issuance of any show-cause notice to him and/or holding of an enquiry, in the matter. Mr. J Sharma, has submitted that the hearing, which had preceded to issuance of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015, was in connection with the suspension of the petitioner and not in connection with institution of any departmental proceedings against him. Mr. J Sharma has further submitted that the respondent authorities have not afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, after issuing to him a due show-cause in the matter leveling the allegations that may have existed in the matter against him. It is submitted that even if the hearing has been held in the matter, with regard to his suspension is taken up to be also a hearing, with regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner, Mr. J Sharma submits that the Enquiry Report, as submitted in the matter, by the Enquiry Officer, would go to reveal that there was no incriminating materials brought against the petitioner, in the matter and rather, the action on the part of the petitioner, in refueling of the vehicle in question, was found to be justified, on account Page No.# 5/11 of the distance covered and also the requirement of running the vehicle at minimum speed and the frequent change of gears due to traffic jam in Guwahati. He submits that basing on the said material, the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, without furnishing to the petitioner a disagreement note, could not have proceeded to remove the petitioner from his services. Mr. J Sharma, has further submitted that the Appellate authority, while considering the matter, had not appreciated the same, in the manner required and accordingly, only by noticing the allegations, leveled against the petitioner, without determining as to whether, the said allegations can be held to be established against the petitioner, herein, proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner, vide an order dated 21.07.2017. 5. In view of the above premises, Mr. J Sharma submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2017, would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Per contra, Dr. A Chamuah, Learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, submits that the allegation, having arisen against the petitioner, of having misappropriated the amount of Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only), which was given to him for meeting exigencies that would arise during the trip undertaken by him to Guwahati, and also submission of a false cash memo from a depot in Meghalaya, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. He submits that thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in the matter, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry into the allegations now coming on record against the petitioner. He submits that the Enquiry Officer had held the enquiry following the principles of natural justice and affording all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. It is also submitted that the petitioner was allowed to Page No.# 6/11 cross-examine the witnesses deposing on behalf of the Corporation, during the enquiry. He further submits that the Enquiry Report, having been submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the same having brought on record, the fact that the allegations, leveled against the petitioner, stood established, the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, on consideration of the matter, proceeded vide order dated 22.12.2015, to remove the petitioner from his services as a Trainee Driver in the Corporation. Dr. A Chamuah, further submits that the said course of action was taken so as to protect the interests of the Corporation. 7. Dr. A Chamuah, further submits that the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, more particularly Rule 9, thereof, would not have an application, in so far as the case of the petitioner, herein, is concerned, inasmuch as, he was not a permanent employee of the Corporation and was only a Trainee Driver and accordingly, he submits that by following the spirit of the said Rules of 1964, the proceeding against the petitioner was conducted and on conclusion of the same, the allegations being found to have been established, he was removed from his services as a Trainee Driver. Dr. A Chamuah submits that the petitioner having been granted an opportunity to have his say in the matter and an enquiry also being held, the principles of natural justice, is to be deemed to have been complied with, in the matter and accordingly, the removal of the petitioner from his services with the Corporation, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 8. Dr. A Chamuah, in support of his submissions, has furnished to this Court, the records pertaining to the Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, herein. 9. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 7/11 10. The petitioner, was removed from his services by the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation, vide order dated 22.12.2015, which is projected to have been so issued, basing on an enquiry, conducted in the matter, pertaining to the allegations leveled against the petitioner of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only), which was given to him for meeting the exigencies that may arise in course of the reserved trip he was required to undertake to Guwahati on 23.05.2015. The projections made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is to the effect that the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice and thereafter, an enquiry was held in the matter, wherein, the allegations leveled against the petitioner was established and the same had led to the issuance of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015. The said position was, however, disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who had categorically submitted that there was no show-cause served upon the Petitioner, at any point of time, and the enquiry, that is now been projected to be the basis for removing the petitioner from his services in the Corporation, was, in fact, an enquiry which was held in connection to the suspension of the petitioner which was effected, vide order dated 23.06.2015. 10. Having noticed the projections made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, this Court has perused the records furnished by the Learned Standing Counsel, ASTC. This Court finds that after the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 23.06.2015. He was required, vide a communication dated 08.10.2015, to appear before the Senior Divisional Superintendent of the Corporation at Jorhat for a personal hearing, on 13.10.2015. The said personal hearing was projected to be in connection with the suspension of the petitioner effected on 23.06.2015. The said hearing is found to have been conducted and an Enquiry Report, in this connection, is also found in the records of the matter. Page No.# 8/11 11. A perusal of the said Enquiry Report, which was submitted by the Senior Divisional Superintendent of the Corporation on 13.10.2015, as the Enquiry Office would reveal that no evidence was found to have come on record, with regard to the commission of any irregularity by the petitioner, herein. Further, the consumption of fuel by the vehicle in question, which had led to the necessity of the refueling of the same, by the petitioner, was also found to have been justified, on account of the fact that the vehicle was required to move at a very minimum speed and there was frequent change of gears on account of traffic jam at Guwahati. It was also projected that the bus was required to carry out 4 local trips within the city of Guwahati, during the period it was at Guwahati. The said Enquiry Report, in the considered view of this Court, in addition to be not in pursuance to a departmental proceeding, instituted against the petitioner, also does not bring on record any materials to hold a view that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner stood established. 12. A perusal of the records has also revealed that on 08.06.2015, the Station Superintendent of the Corporation at Jorhat had issued a show- cause notice to the Petitioner, wherein, the allegations leveled against him, pertaining to the misappropriation of the advance amount of Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only), as given to him. The further allegation is to the effect that the petitioner had submitted a false cash memo of refueling the vehicle in question for an amount of Rs. 2700/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only). While the said show-cause notice is found to be available in the said records, there is no material to demonstrate that the said show-cause notice was actually served upon the Petitioner, herein. A show-cause notice which is available in the records, but not demonstrated to be served upon the delinquent would be of no consequence, in the eye of law, and the same cannot be Page No.# 9/11 projected to have the effect of instituting a departmental proceeding, against the petitioner, herein. The materials available on record only indicates that the personal hearing, extended to the petitioner, was in connection with his order of suspension and not in pursuance to the said show-cause notice dated 08.06.2015. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the Enquiry Report and the consequential steps, taken thereof, by the authorities of the Corporation. As noticed, hereinabove, the Enquiry Report, in no manner, implicates the petitioner with the allegations leveled against him and the same is only in connection with the order of suspension passed in his case. The pleadings brought on record by the respondent Corporation reveals that the impugned order dated 22.12.2015, was so passed, basing on the Enquiry Report, as submitted in the matter, by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Report, having not brought on record any material to hold the allegations leveled against the petitioner to have been established, it was permissible for the Managing Director (MD) of the Corporation to impose a penalty and/or remove the petitioner from his services, only after a disagreement note, in this connection, was recorded and communicated to the petitioner, herein. The materials, brought on record, including the disclosures made from the records, furnished by the Learned Standing Counsel of the Respondent Corporation, does not reveal of any such disagreement note being prepared and forwarded to the petitioner, herein, prior to the issuance of the order dated 22.12.2015. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 22.12.2015, has been so issued contrary to the materials available on record and accordingly, the same would mandate an interference from this Court. The order of the Appellate Authority, only having noticed the steps taken by the authorities of the Corporation leading to the issuance of the order dated 22.12.2015, Page No.# 10/11 the same would also mandate an interference from this Court. 14. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court proceeds to set-aside the order dated 22.12.2015 and the order dated 21.07.2015. The impugned orders having been interfered with, the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his services, forthwith. Having directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in his services an issue will arise as to the back-wages, the petitioner would now be required to be authorized. This Court, in view of the conclusions reached, hereinabove, finds that the petitioner was removed from his services without following a due process of law and accordingly, the removal was interfered with. However, this Court cannot lose sight also that the petitioner, after he was removed from his services has not been discharging, the duties, in any manner, with the respondent Corporation. This Court further, by considering the fact that the present Writ Petition was pending before this Court since the year 2017 and the remanding back the matter to the respondent authorities would further delay the reinstatement of the petitioner, directs that the petitioner be reinstated in his services and the period of he had remained away from his duties, after the issuance of the order dated 22.12.2015, be regularized notionally and the pay of the petitioner, fixed on the date he resumes his services accordingly. The petitioner be paid back-wages to the extent of 25% (Twenty-Five percent) of the total back-wages that he would now be entitled, after the notional computation of his pay and allowances is so made. The petitioner be reinstated in his services forthwith, on receipt of a certified copy of this order and the back-wages to the extent as directed, hereinabove, be released to the petitioner within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 11/11 16. The records produced by the Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation returned in the Court today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant