Gauhati High Court
M.U. Mizanur Rahman Laskar And 3 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 23 September, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010125162020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3628/2020
1:M.U. MIZANUR RAHMAN LASKAR AND 3 ORS.
S/O- LT. MISBA UDDIN LASKAR, R/O- VILL- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR PART-
VI, P.O. AND P.S. KOCHUDARAM, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM
2: JAHANARA BEGUM LASKAR
W/O- LT. ASAB UDDIN LASKAR
R/O- VILL- NOTUN RAMNAGAR PART-IV
P.O. DAKSHIN MOHANPUR
P.S. SONAI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
3: SUMI BEGUM MAZUMDER
W/O- NASIBUL ALAM MAZUMDER
R/O- VILL AND P.O. SONABARIGHAT
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
4: SIMI BEGAM CHOUDHURY
W/O- ABUL KALAM AZAD HUSSAIN LASKAR
R/O- VILL- BHAURIKANDI PART-II
P.O. HATIKHAL BAZAR
P.S. KOCHUDARAM
DST.- CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
Page No.# 2/5
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
JURIPAR
GHY-22
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SONAI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. SONAIMUKH
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788119
6:SAHAB UDDIN LASKAR
ACCOUNTANT
SONAI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. SONAIMUKH
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 78811
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNRD
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 23-09-2020 Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent no. 3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the averments made in the writ petition in paragraph no. 3, has submitted that the 4 (four) petitioners are elected members of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat under the Sonai Development Block, District - Cachar.
3. The writ petition has been filed by bringing in certain allegations against the respondent no. 6. It is averred that the respondent no. 6 is an Accountant in Sonai Development Block wherein he has been posted for the last 30 years. Because of his long tenure in the said Block, he has made a syndicate and siphoned off money in respect of different fraudulent schemes without doing any work. Strong political connections and nexus with other officials are alleged against him by the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioner that they filed a complaint on 04.06.2020 before the respondent no. 4 wherein they had highlighted about all the alleged irregularities committed by the respondent no. 6 during his service. The matter was also stated to be brought before the notice of the other respondent authorities. It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 was placed under suspension by an office order dated 12.06.2020 by the respondent no. 2, pending drawal of departmental proceeding. It has been alleged by the petitioners that immediately thereafter on 03.09.2020, the respondent no. 6 has been reinstated to his original place of posting with immediate effect by the respondent no. 2, pending drawal of departmental proceeding.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking reliefs as to why -
"(i) the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 reinstating the Respondent No. 6 to Page No.# 4/5 his original place of posting should not be set aside and quashed; and/or
(ii) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of like nature should not be issued commanding the respondent authorities, more particularly the Respondent no. 1 & 2, to initiate the departmental against Respondent No. 6 as contemplated in the order dated 12.06.2020 and to conclude the same in a time bound manner; and/or
(iii) a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction of like nature shall not be issued commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2 to cause an enquiry against the Respondent No. 6 and other officials of Sonai Development Block regarding their involvement in the embezzlement of public money;
(iv) a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction of like nature shall not be issued commanding the respondent no. 2 to give posting to the Respondent No. 6 in any other place away from the Sonai Development Block to prevent manipulation of records and ensure a free and fair departmental proceeding."
5. Having gone through the averments in the writ petition and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is found that the matter of suspension and drawal of departmental proceeding and the subsequent reinstatement of the respondent no. 6 are matters between the employer and the employee. In so far as the matters of suspension, drawal of departmental proceeding and reinstatement of the respondent no. 6 are concerned, the petitioners are not remotely connected with the said subject-matters. Thus, it is apparent that they are third parties to such matters.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjit Prasad vs. Union of India and others , reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313, has observed that a mere busybody who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken Page No.# 5/5 after a "domestic" inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the Constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. It has further observed that if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
7. Thus, considering the reliefs sought in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to raise their grievances before the appropriate forum, as available under law. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant