Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010230202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6155/2025 SRI PRANAB ROY MEDHI S/O- LATE SURENDRANATH ROY MEDHI, R/O HOUSE NO 47, SIVA MANDIR PATH, NEAR GANESH MANDIR H.S SCHOOL, P.O- KHANAPARA, DISTRICT -KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN.- 781022 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ASSAM STATE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSAM STATE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE PROJECT CO ORDINATOR -CUM- PROJECT OFFICER ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR K KASHYAB,MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 10-11-2025 Heard Mr. IH Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant under the Assam State Disaster Management Authority (ASDMA), (AIRBMP World Bank Project). The petitioner was engaged in service on 16.01.2025 and he joined in his service on 17.01.2025. After rendering about 4 (four) months of service, the Project Officer, AIRBMP, ASDMA, issued a show-cause notice on 24.05.2025 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why disciplinary actions shall not be initiated against the petitioner for willful negligence on the duties in respect to the areas mentioned in the said show cause notice. The petitioner in his reply dated 26.05.2024 submitted that there was no deficiency in rendering his service. Thereafter, on 03.06.2025 the petitioner was issued a written warning for improvement of his performance. The petitioner continued to render hid service when he was served with a termination order dated 06.10.2025. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the agreement the petitioner is required to be served with a 15 (fifteen) days Page No.# 3/6 written notice in case the authorities take its decision to terminate the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned termination order dated 06.10.2025 be interfered with as no opportunity of proper hearing and notice prior to termination as is required as per the contract agreement was furnished to the petitioner. 4. Upon being permitted Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has obtained his instructions. Mr. S Dutta submits that in terms of the agreement, the Department is empowered to take disciplinary action. The petitioner has been found to be negligent in performing his duties and lack of basic knowledge to discharge the responsibilities of an accountant. Further, he was found to have repeatedly failed to meet the minimum standards of diligence, discipline, and responsibility expected from his position, and was also found to have resorted to acts of insubordination. It was also found that there was repeated delay in processing the payment without any appropriate explanation despite multiple follow up and the urgency of financial timelines. He was not able to provide adequate timely responses and was found to be absence from internal and external meetings. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was terminated as the contract agreement provides for a termination. 5. The claim of the writ petitioner that he was not given a notice prior to termination appears to be incorrect. The petitioner was given a show-cause to Page No.# 4/6 which he replied. The only claim of the petitioner is that his termination was not preceded by a 15 (fifteen) days notice. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not employed in the said Department. He was employed on contract basis under Assam Integrated River Basin Management Programme under the ASDMA and the terms of engagement are governed by the contract executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents’ authority. The conditions are not disputed by the writ petitioner. The only ground urged before the Court by the petitioner is that 15 (fifteen) days written notice prior to issuance of the termination order dated 06.10.2205 was not complied with. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the terms of engagement itself, it is seen that the entire period of contract was for a duration of one year and the contract agreement clearly specifies that the services may be terminated on any time if the employee is found to be guilty of insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct of any breach or non-performance. 7. The allegations made against the petitioner and in the show-cause and the replies of the petitioner thereto are issues which will require determination of facts. No materials have been placed by the petitioner or by the respondents which will enable the Court to decide the correctness of the allegations made against the writ petitioner at this stage. The question of absence of prior notice Page No.# 5/6 also cannot be entirely accepted in view of the fact that the formal show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and he had submitted his reply thereto. Warning letter was also issued. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that prior to termination of the contract 15 (fifteen) working days written notice to the petitioner was not issued. This condition mentioned in the engagement of issuance of 15 (fifteen) days working notice according to the Court may not be applicable in a case where service was terminated if the employee is found to be guilty of insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct of any breach or non performance of the contract. While in the case of any violation of natural justice, writ court is certainly empowered to issue appropriate orders, however, the facts narrated before this Court in the present proceedings do not reflect that there was any violation of natural justice. Opportunity was found to have been granted to the writ petitioner and to which the petitioner had also responded to. Whether the response of the writ petitioner were adequately not considered by the employed or whether the allegations made by the employer against the writ petitioner are found to be not based on facts or materials are questions of facts which cannot be decided by the Court in the absence of any relevant materials before the Court, which has not been placed by the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court in the present proceeding is not inclined to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Page No.# 6/6 prayed for. The writ petition therefore is found to be devoid of any merit in respect of seeking orders from the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. This dismissal, however, will not preclude the writ petitioner to take recourse before the appropriate forum if the petitioner is so advised to pursue his remedy. 9. Writ petition stands closed in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant