Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010256452022 2025:GAU-AS:3984 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8043/2022 LOMBIT KONWAR S/O- SRI PRADIP KONWAR, R/O- NO. 1 CHAKALIA, P.O. CHAKALIA, P.S. MORAN, DIST.- DIBRUGARH (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPTT., JANATA BHAWAN, BLOCK- E, GROUND FLOOR, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT PARIBAHAN BHAWAN JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY-22 3:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 4:OIL INDIA LIMITED HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786602 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR 5:CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 786602 6:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (CGM)- LOGISTICS OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786602 7:GENERAL MANAGER (HR ACQUISITION) HR ACQUISITIONS DEPTT. OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786602 8:SENIOR MANAGER (HR ACQUISITION) HR ACQUISITIONS DEPTT. OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 78660 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. P P DUTTA,MS P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT, SC, O I L BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 03.04.2025 Heard Mr T J Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr P P Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms M D Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, for the respondent No. 3 and Mr A Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited (OIL), appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. 2. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the letter dated 10.09.2022 (Annexure-14), issued by the respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner was Page No.# 3/7 said to have been issued a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), on 05.08.2016, and for Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) only, on 05.08.2017. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner is that he responded to the advertisement dated 21.08.2020, issued by the Oil India Limited (OIL), inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Operator-I (HMV), Grade-VII. The essential qualification and experience required for the said post amongst others was that the applicant must possess minimum 4 years old and valid professional HMV Driving Licence, issued by the Government of Assam or Arunachal Pradesh and the applicant must have minimum 3 (three) years of work experience in driving heavy vehicles like crane, trailer, oil-field equipment and other heavy vehicles. 4. The application of the petitioner was accepted and he was given an offer of appointment on 05.08.2021, and thereafter, an appointment letter on 06.08.2021 was issued. The employer, Oil India Limited (OIL) wrote to the respondent No. 3, seeking verification of the driving licence of the petitioner on 05.01.2012, and accordingly, the respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 17.03.2022, replied that the driving licence of the petitioner was genuine and authentic as per the office record and the date of issuing driving licence, pertaining to professional HMV was 05.08.2016. Pursuant thereto, the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 06.08.2022, vide confirmation order dated 05.09.2022. 5. Thereafter, to the surprise of the petitioner, a show cause notice and suspension order was issued by the employer, to him on 15.11.2022, on the ground that the date of issuance of HMV Licence to him was 05.08.2017, and not 05.08.2016, in terms of the communication received from the respondent No. 3 dated 10.09.2022. The petitioner, was, therefore, informed that he had made a false declaration and he should submit his written explanation within 10 days, from the date of notice, as to why his appointment should not be terminated. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 6. Mr T J Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned letter dated Page No.# 4/7 10.09.2022, has been issued without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and behind his back. He submits that the petitioner was issued his driving licence for driving transport and LMV vehicles, on 05.08.2016, which was also confirmed by the respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 17.03.2022. Therefore, the respondent No. 3, at a later stage, could not have claimed to have issued the driving licence for HMV only, on 05.08.2017, and which has led the employer of the petitioner to take consequential steps to issue a show cause notice and suspend him from service. Therefore, in view of violation of the principles of natural justice and the consequential effect, the impugned letter dated 10.09.2022, has resulted in, the service career of the petitioner has been put at stake and therefore, the said impugned communication should be set aside. 7. Ms M D Bora, learned counsel submits that as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M V Act), the terms HMV, LMV and transport vehicle has been defined in Sections 2 (21) (16) and (47), respectively. She submits that as per Section 7 of the MV Act, no person can be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he holds a driving licence to drive an LMV, for at least one year. In the instant case, the petitioner was given the licence to drive LMV, on 05.08.2016 and for HMV, on 05.08.2017, which is only in terms of Section 7 of the MV Act. However, this fact was, inadvertently, not informed to the Oil India Limited (OIL), when query was made by them. Later on, when the same was discovered, a communication was made in this regard, on 10.09.2022, as per the records maintained by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, there is no question of setting aside the said communication, which is based on the records maintained by the respondent No. 3. In support of her submissions, she relies upon the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3. 8. Mr A Sarma, learned Standing Counsel Oil India Limited submits that as per the advertisement dated 21.08.2020, there was a clear stipulation that the application for the post in question must possess a minimum 4-year-old and valid professional HMV Page No.# 5/7 driving licence, issued by the Government of Assam or Arunachal Pradesh and the crucial date was 18.09.2020. Further, the applicant must also have minimum 3 years of work experience in driving heavy vehicles. As per the communication dated 10.09.2022, it is clear that the petitioner was given HMV driving licence only on 05.08.2017 and, therefore, as on 18.09.2020, the petitioner did not have a valid 4 years old HMV driving licence. The petitioner, therefore, has clearly made a wrong declaration that he was qualified in all aspects. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit, filed by the Oil India Limited, which is the application submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that as per the declaration made in the application by the petitioner, in case of any false information being furnished by him, he would solely be responsible for the same and will not have any objection against the cancellation of his appointment. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is bound by his own undertaking and having made a false declaration, he is only responsible for the consequential action taken against him. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Indresh Kumar Mishra and Others –Vs- State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 10. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 10.09.2022, by which the employer of the petitioner has been informed that the driving licence for driving HMV was issued to the petitioner on 05.08.2017, while the driving licence for LMV was issued on 05.08.2016. The petitioner has annexed his driving licence issued on 05.08.2016 as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, and similarly, the respondent/Oil India Limited have annexed the same driving licence of the petitioner, as Annexure-R/3 of their counter affidavit. In both the driving licences, Page No.# 6/7 the class of vehicle which the petitioner is authorized to drive has been indicated as-“Trans, LMV”. Apart from this driving licence, no other driving licence is available on record, which shows that the petitioner is authorized to drive HMV. As per the impugned communication dated 10.09.2022, the petitioner has been shown to be issued the licence to drive Trans (HMV), on 05.08.2017, and which has resulted in the issuance of the show cause notice –cum- the order of suspension to him. The impugned communication dated 10.09.2022 was issued after the respondent No. 3 had earlier confirmed about the authenticity of the petitioner’s driving licence to the Oil India Limited (OIL), vide letter dated 14.12.2021, and thereafter, by another letter dated 17.03.2022, confirming not only the genuineness and authenticity of the petitioner’s driving licence as per the office record, but also giving the date of issue of driving licence, pertaining to the professional Heavy Motor Vehicle, as 05.08.2016, which, precisely is the date given in the driving licence of the petitioner at Annexure-3 of the writ petition, and Annexure-R/3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Oil India Limited (OIL). The question, therefore, is, as to whether the said driving licence can be considered as an authorization for driving HMV, by the petitioner, w.e.f. 05.08.2017 or 05.08.2016, in absence of a separate driving licence being produced by any of the parties, authorizing the petitioner to drive HMV. In other words, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner is authorized to drive HMV only from 05.08.2017, except for the impugned communication dated 10.09.2022. It is otherwise the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is authorized to drive transport vehicles, including HMV, in terms of the licence issued to him on 05.08.2016. As already stated, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing, since the impugned communication has directly affected his service career. 11. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above and under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall, within 15 (fifteen) days from today, appear before the Page No.# 7/7 respondent No. 3, i.e., the District Transport Officer (DTO), District-Dhemaji, and the respondent No. 3 shall give him not only an opportunity of hearing, but also allow him to produce any such documents in support of his claim that he has the licence to drive HMV, w.e.f. 05.08.2016, in terms of the driving licence that was issued to him on that date. The respondent No. 3, upon giving such opportunity to the petitioner, shall issue a fresh verification report, clearly indicating the date on which the petitioner has been authorized to drive HMV by issuance of a valid licence. Such verification report should be issued within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of appearance, before the respondent No. 3. The verification report directed to be issued shall also be communicated to the Oil India Limited by the respondent No. 3, for taking consequential steps. The impugned communication dated 10.09.2022, shall be governed by the fresh verification report to be made by the respondent No. 3. 12. In view of the conclusion arrived at, reference to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for Oil India Limited, is found to be not necessary. 13. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant