AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Ms. R. Baruah, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. M. Nath, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent no.1; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
By filing this Intra-Court appeal, the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent no.1 in the writ petition, has assailed the judgment and order dated 04.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3664/2022, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein was allowed.
The respondent no.1 is the writ petitioner. In the said writ petition, the appellant was arrayed as respondent no.1, and the proforma respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein were arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
In brief, the case presented by the respondent no.1 in the writ petition is as follows: -
a. She was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist, Jorhat Treasury by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3), now redesignated as District Commissioner, Jorhat. In due course, she was promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Assistant by the proforma respondent no.3 and was posted at the same Jorhat Treasury. Thereafter, by order dated 22.06.2013, passed by the proforma respondent no.3, she was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Assistant.
b. The respondent no.1 projects that while she was working in the aforesaid post, on 20.12.2021, the private respondent no.5, who was holding the post of proforma respondent no.4 along with some other staff forced her to put her signature on an application addressed to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.4). However, on 21.12.2021, she applied before the proforma respondent no.4, to cancel her application dated 20.12.2021, alleging that it signed by her under compulsion. According to the respondent no.1, her said application was duly received in the office of the respondent no.1, but on 28.02.2022, the impugned order to voluntarily retire her was passed.
c. The further case of the respondent no.1 was that her employer is the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3). Hence, the VRS application was to be addressed only to the said authority, and only the said authority can consider the application for VRS. However, she was forced to sign the VRS application that was addressed to the proforma respondent no.4 and the proforma respondent no. 4 had issued the impugned order dated 28.02.2022, thereby accepting her voluntary retirement. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 claimed that the said action of the proforma respondent no.4 was without jurisdiction and not in accordance with F.R. 56(c). It was stated that though in the impugned order, the proforma respondent no.4 had mentioned that the application of the respondent no. 1 was approved by the authority, but the name or designation of the authority and the date of issuing the purported order of approval for voluntary retirement of the respondent no.1 was not disclosed.
d. Moreover, it was claimed that the procedure prescribed under FR 56(c) providing three months’ time between filing of the application for voluntary retirement and its acceptance was not followed. It was stated that the person who seeks voluntary retirement has three months’ time to reconsider the decision and that the employer can also apply mind to the given facts before allowing such application. Thus, the respondent no.1 alleges mala fide intention of the State authorities, more particularly, of proforma respondent no.5, the then Treasury Officer, Jorhat (impleaded in the writ petition by name), who had hurriedly accepted the application of the respondent no.1 for voluntary retirement before the expiry of three months.
e. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that records were illegally manipulated to cover up things.
f. It was also projected that the application for VRS and its acceptance were nullity in law and accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order and consequential action were not sustainable and the same be set aside.
STAND OF THE PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.3 (i.e. RESPONDENT NO.3 IN THE WRIT PETITION):
On behalf of the proforma respondent no.3 herein, the Assistant Commissioner, Jorhat, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it was stated, inter alia, that the file relating to the letter received from the respondent no.1 for VRS was put up before the respondent no.3 on 27.12.2021, and the views of the ADC (Personnel) was sought for. The matter was put up before the respondent no.3 on 24.01.2022, and the VRS prayer of the respondent no.1 was approved by the said respondent vide order dated 09.02.2022 based on the report submitted by the Treasury Officer (respondent no.4).
STAND OF THE PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO. 4 (i.e. RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE WRIT PETITION):
The stand of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.4 herein, was as follows: -
a. The proforma respondent no.4, by referring to the documents and office notes which are part of the affidavit filed by proforma respondent no.4, denied that there was any mala fide exercise of power. It was stated that the impugned order was passed after following the due procedure established, acting upon the application filed by the respondent no.1.
b. It was stated that the respondent no. 1 herein had submitted two HSLC pass certificates. One at the time of opening her service book and another at the time of subsequent enquiry initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat. The HSLC pass certificate found with the service book was sent to the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA for short) for verification vide letter dated 01.07.2021 and as per the SEBA’s verification report dated 27.07.2022, the photocopy of the HSLC Certificate in respect of Smt. Binapani Gogoi against Roll C-35, No. 384 of the HSLC Examination, 1981, was not genuine and the same was not issued by SEBA. However, it was also mentioned by SEBA that on examination of their records, it was found that one candidate by name Binapani Gogoi had appeared in the HSLC Examination, 1980, which was held in the year 1981, as the examination could not be held in the year 1980.
c. Accordingly, on the basis of various allegations raised against the respondent no.1, the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3), ordered an enquiry by constituting a Committee of 3 (three) Officers of the District Administration, which had submitted its report on 23.11.2022 to the proforma respondent no.3.
d. Thereafter, on 20.12.2021, the respondent no.1 voluntarily applied for retirement from service (VRS for short). It was denied as false that the respondent no. 1 was compelled by force to sign the VRS. It was also stated that the VRS application of the respondent no.1 was forwarded by the Treasury Officer, Jorhat to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat for approval on 27.12.2021, which was approved in the related file on 24.01.2022. Accordingly, an office order no. JT.01/VRS/BD/2021/892-A dated 09.02.2022 was passed. On the basis of such approval, the proforma respondent no. 4 had intimated the respondent no. 1 about the same vide letter dated 28.02.2022.
e. It was denied that the respondent no. 1 ever submitted an application dated 21.12.2021 in the Office to the proforma respondent no.4. It was stated that any letter received at the receipt desk are recorded in the Central Register by the LDA of the said office with his signature by putting serial receipt number against each letter/document and then sent for signature by the Treasury Officer. Thereafter, the signed copies are distributed and acknowledged by the concerned Assistants. It was stated that on perusal of the letter dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition), it was found that the same has no mention in the official register. It was stated that the receipt signature is not the signature of any employee of the office of the proforma respondent no.4 and thus, the receipt signature appearing on that letter dated 21.12.2021 was a fake one. It was also stated that the letter dated 21.12.2021, was only an after-thought on the part of the respondent no.1.
f. It was stated that letter dated 28.02.2022 was only an intimation/ communication by the said proforma respondent, as DDO, to the respondent no. 1 after receipt of approval from the competent authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat.
g. It was stated that the letter dated 28.02.2022, was received by the respondent no.1 herself.
h. It was stated that the respondent no.1 had applied for VRS of her own, without any pressure from anyone in the office and the proforma respondent did nothing beyond his jurisdiction and had acted only after the necessary approval from the competent authority. It was stated that as the proforma respondent no. 4 had acted as the respondent no.1 had submitted an application for VRS, there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice, equity and administrative fair-play.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
j. It may be mentioned herein that at the time of dictating this judgment and order, it has been noticed that part of paragraph 8 is available at the end of page 66 of this Memorandum of Appeal and part of paragraph 12, and paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 is available in page 67 of the Memorandum of Appeal. Thus, remaining part of paragraph no. 8 and paragraph nos. 9 to 12, is missed out between pages 66 and 67 of the Memorandum. Hence, brief narration of those missing statements could not be mentioned herein.
STAND OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN HER AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY AGAINST THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.4:
The respondent no.1, in her affidavit-in- reply, had stated as follows: -
a. While denying that she had submitted 2 (two) HSLC Certificates, it was stated that she had submitted only 1 (one) HSLC Pass Certificate in her name Binapani Gogoi, containing Roll C-35, No. 384, issued by the Secretary, SEBA dated 20.06.1981, certifying that she had passed HSLC Examination in 1980. It was stated that the Certificate dated 20.06.1981 containing Roll C-3 No. 1037, is of Jayanta Kumar Borah, who was serving as Accountant in her office, who will be superannuating on 31.01.2026. It was stated that like Jayanta Kumar Borah, she was also superannuating on 31.01.2026 and both of them had passed HSLC Examination of 1980. Thus, it was stated that the certificate annexed as Annexure-B (page-50) to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the proforma respondent no. 4, allegedly containing the name of Binapani Gogoi, under Roll C-35 No. 384 was fabricated/ manufactured by some vested interest with a view to create a ground to remove her from her post so that the vacant post can be filled up by other incumbent in the office.
b. It was stated that no notice was served to the respondent no. 1 regarding submission of enquiry report dated 22.11.2023. It was stated that her appointing authority in the post of (a) LDA-cum- Typist, (b) Junior Account Assistant, and (c) Senior Account Assistant, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, had verbally asked her to show her HSLC pass certificate as well as her service record including her appointment letter, which she had produced before the said authority on 31.10.2022. Accordingly, after perusal of those documents, she was informed that her documents were genuine and she was allowed to go, but behind her back, incorrect facts were narrated in the Enquiry Report dated 16.11.2022. It was stated that the Enquiry Report was prepared without following due process of law and without any notice to her. It was denied that she was irregular in her duty. It was stated that after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 03.06.2022, passed by this Court, by which the impugned order was stayed, she was allowed to attend office, but the proforma respondent no. 4 had provided an extra attendance register only for her, which she was signing and no one else has been using the said register. As per order dated 07.12.2022, passed by this Court in I.A.(C) No. 3549/2022, this Court had clarified that the order dated 03.06.2022, was in force and communication dated 28.02.2022 was stayed and the respondent no.1 will be entitled to salary from 03.06.2022 onwards. However, she has not been paid her salary and till date she has been signing the extra attendance register.
c. It was denied that she had voluntarily applied for retirement (VRS) on 20.12.2021. In the said regard, the respondent no.1 had narrated her version of how she was made to sign the VRS. It was stated that immediately on the next date she had submitted an application dated 21.12.2021 before the proforma respondent no.4 to cancel her application for VRS. It was stated that she was a widow and it was of utmost necessity to serve in her post till her children completed their studies. It was stated that her said application dated 21.12.2021, was received by Sri Ajit Hazarika, LDA, on behalf of proforma respondent no.4, under his own initial.
d. It was stated that the proforma respondent no.4 did not have the authority to issue the impugned order dated 28.02.2022, allowing her to go on voluntary retirement. It was stated that though it was stated that the authority had approved her VRS, but the memo number and date of the approval letter was not mentioned. Subsequently, it has been shown that the proforma respondent no. 3 had issued order dated 09.02.2022, showing that her prayer was approved.
e. It was stated that in the letter dated 28.02.2022, issued by the Treasury Officer, Jorhat, the letter number has been mentioned as Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021/829, but from the approval letter dated 09.02.2022, the same is shown to have been issued 21 (twenty-one) days before the impugned letter dated 28.02.2022, containing the same memo number by addition of ‘A’ after the last digit, being Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021/829-A dated 09.02.2022, was mentioned at the top but at the bottom, the last digit, i.e. 829 has not been mentioned, which is not the usual practice in Government. It was also stated that pursuant to her RTI application, she was furnished with a copy of the approval letter dated 09.02.2022, where the memo number is mentioned as Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021 at the top and at the bottom, but it does not contain the last digit, i.e. 829 or 829-A, which appears in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the proforma respondent no.3 and 4. Thus, different memo numbers have been given by the respondent authorities on the same approval letter dated 28.02.2022. Thus, it was stated that the ante-dated approval letter was illegally issued by proforma respondent no.3.
f. It was also stated that there is manipulation in the issue register.
g. It was also stated that the letter dated 09.02.2022 was ante-dated to justify the illegal action of proforma respondent no.3 and therefore, there was no justification to approach the said authority to redress her grievance.
h. By referring to F.R. 56(c), it was stated that her application for voluntary retirement was required to be addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, but in the instant case her application dated 20.12.2021, on which her signature was obtained under coercion was addressed to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.4), which is without jurisdiction. It was stated that Rule 56 binds the Government as well as the Government Servant and the said Rule provides for 3 (three) months’ period to allow an incumbent to go for voluntary retirement. However, in this case, before completion of 3 (three) months the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4 had hurriedly and illegally taken steps to allow her to go for voluntary retirement before completion of 3 (three) months as stipulated in the said rule, for which the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 and ante-dated approval order 09.02.2022 were liable to be set aside and quashed.
It was stated that without any intimation to her by letter and without her consent, the proforma respondent no.4 had deposited retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, GIS and two months’ provisional pension amounting to Rs.22,36,029/- (Rupees Twenty two lakh thirty six thousand twenty nine only) to her bank account tactfully to show as if the respondent no.1 has been paid all pensionary benefits. It was stated that as the respondent no.1 receives salary through her bank account, the bank account details is known to the Accounts Branch of the establishment of proforma respondent no.4 and taking advantage of the same, money was deposited into her account without her consent. In the said regard, it was submitted that she had made an application dated 13.07.2022 before the proforma respondent no.4, stating that such deposit was made without her consent and she was ready and willing to return the said monetary benefits on receipt of Government order from proforma respondent no.4. It was stated that no steps was taken by the proforma respondent no. 4 in this regard.
j. It was stated that she was allowed to go on voluntary retirement on 28.02.2022 and on the same day, the Selection Committee had recommended selection of candidates to fill up the post of Senior Accounts Assistant including the post held by her. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.03.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, 7 (seven) posts of Senior Accounts Assistant, including the one held by the respondent no.1 had been filled up. It was also stated that thereafter one more vacancy in the post of Senior Accounts Assistant arose on 31.08.2022 due to retirement, but in spite of knowledge of the order dated 03.06.2022, passed by this Court, the said post was also filled up on the very next date, i.e. 01.09.2022.
Stand of the respondent no.1 in additional affidavit filed by her:
The respondent no.1, in her additional affidavit, has stated as follows: -
a. By referring to the statements made in paragraph 7 of her affidavit-in- reply filed against the affidavit-in- opposition of the proforma respondent no.4, it was stated to the effect that there was manipulation regarding memo number of the letter referred therein. In that regard, it was stated that on 28.02.2024, when the copy of the said issue register was produced before the Court, this Court was pleased to permit her to file an additional affidavit.
b. It was stated that on a perusal of the issue register, it was found that the column no.1 contained numbers from serial number 801 to 827 in 3 (three) pages. In column no. 2, dates are mentioned. At the end of the first two pages of Annexure-7, the Treasury Officer has put his signature and seal and below it nothing has been written. However, in page no.3, after the seal and signature of the Treasury Officer, a date, i.e. 28.02.2022 has been put in place of number and on the right side of the number it has been written “Treasury Officer” and to “Binapani …” with a different ink. Again, it was stated that just below the date, 2 (two) numbers has been incorporated i.e. ‘829’ and below that ‘829A’.
c. In that regard, it was stated that if approval was granted on 09.02.2022, under Memo number ending with ‘829-A’, in that case, in the issue register, the said number ‘829-A’ would have found place above memo number ending with ‘829’ and not below. Accordingly, it was submitted that the issue register was manipulated and approval was never granted on 09.02.2022 before passing of the impugned order dated 28.02.2022. Accordingly, it was stated that because of the said reason, neither name of the authority granting approval nor any memo number have been mentioned therein.
Submissions by the learned Addl. Advocate General:
The learned Addl. Advocate General had submitted as follows:-
a. The learned Addl. Advocate General had referred to the pleadings appended to the Memo of Appeal.
b. It was submitted that after receipt of the application of respondent no.1, seeking VRS, the Office Assistant put a note to the Treasury Officer (proforma respondent no.4) to the effect that she is entitled to VRS as she had fulfilled both the criteria i.e., she had attained 50 years of age and completed 20 years of service. Thereafter, on 27.12.2021, the proforma respondent no. 4 had forwarded his note to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3) along with the service book of the respondent no.1 in original for his consideration. Thereafter, the proforma respondent no. 4 forwarded the said note to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Personnel) for his comment. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, in his note dated 24.01.2012, opined that the VRS proposal may be approved as the respondent no. 4 has fulfilled the criteria for VRS as verified by DDO. Thereafter, the proforma respondent no. 4 put his signature in the office note on 09.02.2022, approving the aforesaid recommendation. Thus, it is denied that there is no procedural impropriety in accepting the VRS application of the respondent no.1.
c. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 was paid a provisional pension for the month of March 2022, April 2022 and May 2022. Moreover, it was submitted that from the date of filing the VRS application the respondent no.1 had never attended the office, but she had enjoyed her pensionary benefits.
d. It was stated that the VRS application did not suggest any date of effect. Therefore, there shall not be any requirement on the part of the employer to wait for three months before accepting the application for VRS. The proforma respondent no.4 had issued order dated 28.02.2022, allowing the respondent no.1 to go on voluntary retirement. Moreover, the writ petition was filed after receiving provisional pension and other retiral dues. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 was paid her provisional pension, including other receivables, as under:-
A.A. of Jorhat Treasury has been approved and allowed to go for VRS on 28/02/2022, the Retirement Benefits may be as follows:
Prov. DCRG :Rs.12,37,400/- out of total Rs.12,47,400/-
Prov. Pension :Rs.28,855/-
Leave encashment :Rs.7,56,000/-
G.I.S. : Rs.79,501/-
e. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 had submitted two HSLC pass certificates. Therefore, to avoid any disciplinary action against her, she had submitted an application on 20.12.2021 for voluntary retirement from service. It was vehemently denied that on 21.12.2021, the respondent no.1 had submitted any application to the Office of the proforma respondent no. 4 for withdrawing the application for VRS. It was submitted that the signature appearing in a copy of the purported application dated 21.12.2021, annexed to the writ petition does not match with the signature of any staff of the Office of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat. Thus, it was submitted that no application dated 21.12.2021, was received on record by the proforma respondent no.3, and the same was created as an after-thought.
f. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had observed in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment as under: -
“35.Therefore in the totality of the matter, more particularly for the conclusions recorded in paragraph 32 and 33 & 34 of this judgment, this Court concludes that on the basis of the materials available on record cannot conclude that the petitioner did file the application dated 21.12.2021.”
g. It was submitted that in spite of aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge, in the same paragraph took a contradictory view to hold as follows: -
“Therefore, in the totality of the matter, this Court, on the basis of the materials available on record including the pleadings of the respective parties can safely conclude that the petitioner filed her application on 20.12.2021, she withdrew it on 21.12.2021 and that though the Deputy Commissioner approved such voluntary retirement on 09.02.2022 in the office file, however, no formal order was issued by the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, except intimation of such decision by the Treasury Officer.”
h. It was submitted that despite the fact that the office of the proforma respondent no. 4 did not have the record of VRS withdrawal application dated 22.12.2021 in their receipt register, the basis for the learned Single Judge to hold that the respondent no.1 had withdrawn her VRS application dated 21.12.2021 is on the ground that the order dated 09.02.2022 had not been entered in the Receipt Register of the Treasury Office, Jorhat. In the said regard, it was submitted that the draft of the order dated 09.02.2022 was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, in the endorsement dated 24.12.2021 itself (page 78 of the Memo of Appeal) and after signing on 09.02.2022, it was returned to the Treasury Office, Jorhat in the file itself. Accordingly, there was no requirement for entering the same in the Receipt Register.
It was submitted that the learned Single Judge was of the view that merely because the order dated 09.02.2022 has no entry in the Receipt Register, it cannot straightaway be accepted that the respondent no.1 did not submit her letter dated 21.12.2021. Thus, it was submitted that the said view of the learned Single Judge was based on presumption of facts and the same is clearly contrary to record.
j. It was submitted that Office of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat had issued Office Order dated 28.02.2022 under last digit of the memo number 829 and the approval dated 09.02.2022, by the Deputy Commissioner has the last digit of the memo number as 829-A. However, the learned Single Judge erred on facts in failing to appreciate that the letter dated 28.02.2022, by the Treasury Officer, Jorhat was merely an intimation and the actual order of approval was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, on 09.02.2022. But since the Approval Order dated 09.02.2022 was annexed to the Treasury Officer's intimation dated 28.02.2022, it was given issue number 829-A, as its last digit. However, the same would not mean that the said order dated 09.02.2022, was ante-dated.
k. In reply to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 that it is unnatural that the proforma respondent st nd rd th th no.4 had not received any letters on 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 and 27 December, 2021. It was submitted that however busy an office may be, there is no compulsion that every day letters will be received by the Treasury Office, Jorhat. It was submitted that the records clearly reveal that no letters were received on 20.12.2021 to 27.12.2021. Therefore, because of absence of receipt of any letters, it would not mean that there was any manipulation at the office of the proforma respondent no.4.
l. It was submitted that the appellant and the proforma respondents had vehemently denied the allegations of overwriting, ante-dated preparation of orders, and manipulated insertion of letters in the official records. In the said context, it was submitted that such serious allegations clearly involve disputed questions of facts and to find out the veracity of such disputed facts, the appropriate forum would not be this Court in a writ petition, but for such fact-finding exercise, the respondent no.1 could approach the civil court.
m. It was submitted that when the proforma respondent no.4 had denied the receipt of letter dated 21.12.2021, by the respondent no.1, the learned Single Judge merely presumed the submission of withdrawal letter by the respondent no.1 on 21.12.2021. Thus, it was submitted that highly disputed questions of fact was involved in this case and the correct course was to refer the matter to a civil court.
n. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside and quashing of the impugned judgment and order under challenge.
o. In support of his submissions, the learned Addl. Advocate General had cited the following cases, viz., (i) Kailash Nath & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 9, (ii) Rajasthan Pradesh Vidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 609, and (iii) Suresh Prasad Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (1) GLR 188.
p. Apart from making oral submissions, a note of submissions was also submitted, which is made a part of the record.
10) Reply by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1:
a. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 had made his submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order under challenge.
b. It was submitted that the appellant and the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4 had hurriedly accepted the purported VRS application of the respondent no.1 without compliance of F.R. 56(c). Moreover, it was submitted that several judicial pronouncements have clarified that both the employer and the employee must give three months’ time before taking a decision on the VRS application and it would be open to the employee seeking VRS to rethink about the decision.
c. It was submitted that the finding by the learned Single Judge regarding manipulation of receipt register in the office of the proforma respondent no.4 is not based on presumption, but based on copies of documents produced before the Court. If there was no manipulation in the register, entries ought to have been made serially and in the next page as the page was closed by the concerned officer by putting signature and seal at the foot of the relevant page. It was submitted that in her affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.1 had disclosed the name of the concerned colleague working in the office of proforma respondent no.4, who had received the application dated 21.12.2021 submitted by her for withdrawing her application for VRS. Moreover, it was submitted that mere on-line bank transfer of the provisional retiral benefits in the bank account of the respondent no.1 cannot be understood to be acceptance of such payment by the respondent no.1, who had offered in writing to refund the same.
d. It was submitted that pursuant to the order dated 03.06.2022, passed by this Court, while the respondent no.1 was attending the office of the proforma respondent no.4, but she was not allowed to sign in the regular attendance register, but she was made to sign an extra register.
e. Thus, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 had made his submissions to support the impugned judgment and order and he has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Suresh Prasad Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 1 GLR 188, (ii) Badan Neog v. State of Assam & Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 565, (iii) Bula Sarkar v. State of Assam & Ors., W.P. (C) 1204/2019, decided by this Court on 05.03.2020, (iv) Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 17: (1977) 4 SCC 441, (v) State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293. (vi) Ritesh Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677, (vii) Subhas Chandra v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3167/2016, decided by this Court on 13.12.2021.
Reasons and decision:
Considered the submissions as well as the cases cited at the Bar by the learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant and by the learned senior counsel for respondent no.1.
On the basis of submissions made at the Bar, the following points of determination arise for decision in this case:
I. Whether or not the respondent no.1 had applied on 21.12.2021 for withdrawing her VRS application dated 20.12.2021?
II. Whether it was not required for the proforma respondent no. 4 to wait for a period of 3 (three) months before accepting the VRS application dated 21.12.2021, submitted by the respondent no.1?
III. Whether the application dated 20.12.2021 for VRS, addressed by the respondent no.1 to the proforma respondent no.4 was valid and could be acted upon.
IV. Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with?
The point of determination no. (I) as to whether or not the respondent no.1 had applied on 21.12.2021 for withdrawing her VRS application dated 20.12.2021 has been taken up.
In the writ petition, the respondent no.1 herein, apart from impleading the Treasury Officer, Jorhat as respondent no.4, has also impleaded Sri Amar Jyoti Sarma, the then Treasury Officer, Jorhat, as respondent no.5. However, the said respondent no.5 (i.e. proforma respondent no.5 herein) had not filed any affidavit-in- opposition, though mala fide was alleged against him.
It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the provision of F.R. 56, which is relevant for this case -
F.R. 56 (a) The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained in service after this age with sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a Government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances.
(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire Govt. servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
(c)Any Govt. servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
Thus, the mandate of Fundamental Rule 56(c) is that “any Govt. servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier”. Thus, it is required to be examined as to whether the proforma respondent no. 3 was required to wait for the said three months’ period or the said authority could have accepted the VRS application dated 20.12.2021 at any time.
In the said context, it is seen that the application dated 20.12.2021, by the proforma respondent no.1 was addressed to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.4), who is admittedly not the appointing authority for the respondent no.1. From the contents of the letter no. Jt.01/VRS/B.D/2021/829 dated 28.02.2022, issued by the Treasury Officer, Jorhat to the respondent no.1, a copy of which is annexed to the Memo of Appeal (at page 82), it is seen that it has no reference to any enclosure to the said letter. The appellant had neither produced any cogent and admissible proof of service of the memo dated 09.02.2022, before the learned Single Judge, nor such proof has been produced in this Intra-Court appeal. Therefore, the undeniable fact is that the purported order of approval of the VRS application of the respondent no.1 by the authority competent to do so was not communicated to the respondent no.1.
Moreover, on a perusal of the copy of the order no. Jt.01/VRS/BD/2021/829-A dated 09.02.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, which has been annexed to the Memo of Appeal (at page 55 and 81), it is seen that the copy of the said order is not sent/ issued to the respondent no.1.
It is indeed a preposterous plea of the appellant and the proforma respondent no.4 that the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3) did not give any issue number to its approval order dated 09.02.2022.
The appellant and the proforma respondent no.4 have admitted that the proforma respondent no.4 had given the issue number in respect of the purported approval order dated 09.02.2022, written by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3), which is also verifiable because the issue numbers to letter dated 28.02.2022 and the order dated 09.02.2022 are similar, except for the last number, i.e. 829 and 829-A respectively.
However, it may be stated that the author of the order dated 09.02.2022, i.e. proforma respondent no.3 had not made any statement in its affidavit-in- opposition filed in the writ proceeding that it had not given any issue number against approval dated 09.02.2022. No statement was made that it was usual for the office of the proforma respondent no.4, not to give any issue number to its letters and/or any other communications made by the proforma respondent no.4. It may be stated that it is a usual practice of the Government establishments to at least give an issue number, whenever any orders are passed. It is strange that in the order dated 09.02.2022, which was purportedly passed by the proforma respondent no.3, issue number would be given by the proforma respondent no.4 with the last digit of issue number as ‘829-A’.
Moreover, there is no denial of the fact that the concerned issue register of the office of the proforma respondent no.4 contains the signature of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat in the right-hand end after entry bearing serial no. 827. The letters under issue number 829 and 829-A are entered below the signature of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat. Against entry no 829-A, the contents is referred to as “Enclosure (D.C. odher).
It appears that there is spelling mistake in the said register in respect of the word “odher”, which should have been “order”.
In her affidavit-in-reply filed against the affidavit-in- opposition by the proforma respondent no.4, as well as in her additional affidavit filed in the writ proceeding before the learned Single Judge, the respondent no.1 has alleged that the order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the proforma respondent no.3 is back-dated and/or manipulated, no reply was given. Moreover, in this appeal, the appellant has not stated that whose office had given issue number Jt.01/VRS/BD/2021/829-A dated 09.02.2022, issued by the proforma respondent no.4. It may be mentioned that the learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that the draft approval order was prepared in the file, as per the endorsement dated 24.12.2021 (reference: page no. 78 of the memo of appeal)and forwarded to the proforma respondent no.4, who after signing the same on 09.02.2022 in file, returned the file to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat and accordingly, there was no requirement for entering it in the receipt register. Thus, in course of his submissions, the learned Addl. Advocate General has admitted that the Office of the proforma respondent no.3 did not give any issue number to the order dated 09.02.2022. However, on a perusal of the relevant page-78 of the Memo of Appeal, referred to by the learned Addl. Advocate General, it does not contain the reference to any draft order prepared as per file note dated 24.12.2021. Thus, the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General is not found substantiated from materials available on record and moreover, such a stand was not specifically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the proforma respondent no.3. Hence, in this appeal, the appellant is found to be improving the stand taken by the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4. It would not be permissible for the appellant to explain in this appeal regarding the action taken by the proforma respondent no.3, when no such stand was taken by the proforma respondent no.3 in the writ proceeding.
Moreover, in Govt. Departments, almost all orders are prepared in draft, noted in the concerned file and there after the same is issued. But the office of the authority who has finally signed the order has to communicate it by giving the order number and issue number. It is unheard of that the said part of the official work can be left to any other authority who is outside the office of the proforma respondent no.3 in this case. It may be reiterated that the aforesaid stand was not taken by the appellant before the writ proceeding. However, as the point has been urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General, the same is examined, though there was no requirement to examine a stand which was hitherto not taken before the learned Single Judge.
Moreover, the said submissions of the learned Addl. Advocate General is found to have adversely sealed the case against the appellant. The said submissions would mean that the draft order was already prepared and the proforma respondent no.3 had only signed the approval order on the dotted lines. If the proforma respondent no.3 had taken any decision in official file, then the file would be placed before him. The proforma respondent no.3 would have applied his mind and would have taken a decision after considering all aspects. Thereafter, his decision would have been recorded in the file. Then, he would have directed a subordinate to prepare the order in accordance with his decision. Thus, in this case, when it has been submitted that the proforma respondent no.3 had signed the order in the file, in the absence of recording of any decision by the proforma respondent no.3 in the file, the said statement would only mean that the draft order was already prepared by the proforma respondent no.4 and put up before the proforma respondent no.3 and the proforma respondent no. 3, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, had only put his signature on the dotted lines without making any note in the file regarding his decision on the matter. Thus, in this case, the decision-making process of the proforma respondent no.3 is not revealed from any document available in the Memorandum of Appeal.
The respondent no.1 claims that she had to sign the application dated 20.12.2021 for VRS under coercion, which is highly disputed by the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4. However, at the relevant point of time the proforma respondent no.5 was holding the post of the Treasury Officer, Jorhat. However, the said proforma respondent no.5 has not opposed and/or denied the statements made in the writ petition.
In the present case in hand, the respondent no.1 had submitted her purported VRS application on 20.12.2021. Therefore, three months’ notice period would expire on 19.03.2021. However, as per the contention of the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4, the sanction of VRS was granted on 09.02.2022 and the same was communicated by the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3) to the respondent no.1 on 28.02.2022. Thus, the approval and communication of VRS, though disputed by the respondent no.1, was before the expiry of three months from the date of application.
Thus, it has to be examined how the provision of F.R. 56(c) has been interpreted by various Courts.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma (supra) had referred to FR 56 and had observed that the said provision is one of the statutory rules which binds the Government as well as the Government servant. It would be relevant to quote paragraph 13 and paragraph 17 thereof:
“13.F. R. 56 is one of the statutory rules which binds the Government as well as the Government servant. The condition of service which is envisaged in F.R. 56 (c) giving an option in absolute terms to a Government servant to voluntarily retire with three months previous notice, after he reaches 50 years of age or has completed 25 years of service, cannot therefore be equated with a contract of employment as envisaged in Expl. 2 to R. 119.
17.The High Court committed an error of law in holding that consent of the Government was necessary to give legal effect to the voluntary retirement of the appellant under F. R. 56 (c). Since the conditions of F.R. 56 (c) are fulfilled in the instant case, the appellant must be held to have lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from 2nd August, 1976.”
This Court in the case of Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) had held that the notice period under F.R. 56(c) must comply with statutory requirements, further holding that withdrawal before it becomes effective is valid.
In the case of S.K. Singhal (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed that the voluntary retirement did not come about automatically on the expiry of the notice period, but that it could take effect only upon acceptance of the notice by the Government, and that the acceptance must also be communicated; and till then, the jural relationship of master and servant continues and in this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma (supra).
Therefore, the acceptance of the application dated 20.12.2021 of the respondent No. 1 for allowing her to go on VRS, having been approved on 09.02.2022 and conveyed to the respondent No. 1 by the proforma respondent no. 4 vide communication dated 28.02.2022, being done before the expiry of three months' notice period, has to be held to have vitiated the process of acceptance which was done before the wait period of three months before acceptance of the VRS application, as the respondent No. 1 had a right to withdraw the same within three months from the date of applying for VRS.
Moreover, the statement of the respondent no.1 in paragraph-6 of her affidavit-in-reply, where she has stated to the effect that after receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 03.06.2022, the proforma respondent no.4 had provided an extra register solely for her attendance signature has not been denied. Thus, the submission by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the respondent no.1 was not attending to her duties after the acceptance of VRS cannot be accepted at least after the date when copy of the order dated 03.06.2022, was served on the proforma respondent nos. 3 and/or proforma respondent no. 4.
Accordingly, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the respondent No. 1 accepted the retiral dues/ retirement payment / retiral benefits, and the allegation that the respondent no.1 did not attend the office after submitting the application for VRS on 20.12.2021, and that in the absence of withdrawal the employer can accept the application for VRS before the expiry of the notice period of three months, is repelled and rejected in view of the cases referred to above, specifically in view of the provision of F.R. 56(c).
Accordingly, Point of Determination No. II is answered in the affirmative and against the appellants by holding that the proforma respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were mandated to wait for a period of three months before acceptance of the VRS application dated 20.12.2021 submitted by the respondent No. 1; and prior acceptance of the application for VRS, as approved on 09.02.2022 and communicated by the proforma respondent No. 3 on 28.02.2022 is illegal being contrary to the mandate of F.R. 56(c).
As per the provision of F.R. 56(c), the requirement of the said provision is that any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service, subject to conditions contained therein. The application of the respondent no. 1 for going on voluntary retirement was addressed to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent No. 3). The appellant has not made any attempt to show that the proforma respondent No. 4 was the appropriate authority in respect of the respondent no. 1 who could be given notice for voluntary retirement from service or that he had the authority under F.R. 56(c) to issue order/communication No. Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021/829 dated 28.02.2022.
Therefore, a mere fact that the proforma respondent No. 4 had forwarded the application dated 20.12.2021 to the proforma respondent no. 3 for allowing her to go on voluntary retirement would not validate the application for voluntary retirement which was not addressed to the appropriate authority within the meaning of F.R. 56(c), i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent no.3) in this case.
Therefore, an application which is bad in its inception does not get sanctified at a later stage, as it was beyond the competence of proforma respondent No. 4 to accept the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent No. 1.
In the context of an order which at the initial stage is bad in law, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by LRs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 422, had held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside. The said decision was followed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ritesh Tewari and another (supra).
Therefore, in view of the mandate of the provision of F.R. 56(c) that the application for VRS has to be made before the appropriate authority, submission of an application to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent No. 4) cannot get sanctified at a later stage merely because of the said application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (proforma respondent No. 3).
Therefore, all proceedings consequent to the said application have to be held as non-est and would not be sustainable. The Point of Determination No. III is answered accordingly.
In respect of the Point of Determination No. I, it is the case of the respondent No. 1 that she had to apply for VRS in view of the coercion on her, and on 21.12.2021, she had submitted an application for withdrawal of the said application dated 20.12.2021 for VRS.
In the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the proforma respondent no. 4, the respondent no.1 has specifically pleaded in paragraph 7 thereof that the application was received on behalf of the said respondent by the concerned Lower Division Assistant, Shri Ajit Hazarika, on 21.12.2021, under his own initial. It was further stated in paragraph 8 thereof that the application dated 21.12.2021, to cancel the application for voluntary retirement dated 20.12.2021, was received by the Lower Division Assistant, Shri Ajit Hazarika, on the same day under his own signature. It was further stated that she used to sit in the adjacent chair of the said Shri Ajit Hazarika in the office, who used to receive official letters/documents on behalf of the proforma respondent No. 4 by putting his short signature and thereafter dispatch the same to the respective addressees. It was also stated that she is acquainted with the short signature of the said Shri Ajit Hazarika. The said statements of the respondent no.1 has not been denied by the proforma respondent no.5, who was the then Treasury Officer, Jorhat, or by the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4.
On a conjoint reading of the statements made by the respondent no. 1 in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition, it is seen that there is a specific allegation to the effect that the office of the proforma respondent no. 4, in collusion with some office staff and in a pre-planned manner, forced and threatened the respondent no. 1 to go on voluntary retirement. It was also stated that allowing her to go on voluntary retirement vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022, issued by the respondent no. 4 was without jurisdiction and was actuated with malice in fact and malice in law. The authority who was then acting as proforma respondent No. 4, holding the office of Treasury Officer, Jorhat, was impleaded in the writ petition as respondent No. 5, but as mentioned above, the proforma respondent no.5 had not denied those statements.
Therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, when the respondent no. 1 has disclosed the identity of the person who had received the application dated 21.12.2021 submitted by her, with a specific statement that the person was Shri Ajit Hazarika, the Lower Division Assistant, who was receiving communications in the office of proforma respondent no. 4, a mere allegation to the effect that the entry of the same was not found in the receipt register would not be sufficient to hold that the application dated 21.12.2021 was not submitted by the respondent no. 1. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment that the proforma respondent no.1 had filed her application on 20.12.2021, but she withdrew it on 21.12.2022 cannot be faulted with.
The learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that the allegation of withdrawal of VRS application was accepted by the learned Single Bench, which is contrary to the records, is not found sustainable and cannot be held to be presumptive, in the absence of denial of the specific statement by the respondent no. 1 that the application dated 21.12.2021 for withdrawal of application dated 20.12.2021 for VRS was served on the Shri Ajit Hazarika, LDA, who used to sit near the respondent no. 1 in the office.
Accordingly, the Point of Determination No. I is answered in the affirmative and against the appellant by holding that the respondent No. 1 had applied on 21.12.2021 for withdrawal of her application for VRS dated 20.12.2021.
In respect of the Point of Determination No. IV, the stand of the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4 is to the effect that the approval order dated 09.02.2022 was passed by the proforma respondent no. 3 in the file, which was returned to the proforma respondent no. 4.
In the said regard, the further stand of the proforma respondent no. 4 is that as the approval order dated 09.02.2022 was an enclosure to the letter dated 28.02.2022, the issue number was given to the letter dated 28.02.2022 as Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021/829, and the enclosure, which is the approval order dated 09.02.2022, contained the issue number as Jt.01/VRS/B.D./2021/829-A, appears to be contrary to the known and prevailing practice in the State of Assam.
Admittedly, the proforma respondent no. 3 is the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, and in status, in the District Administration, he is superior to the Treasury Officer, Jorhat (proforma respondent No. 4). Therefore, it would be impermissible for a rank subordinate, working in a separate establishment to provide issue number on the order dated 09.02.2022, which is signed by superior administrative authority, i.e. the proforma respondent no. 3.
On a reading of the approval order dated 09.02.2022 as annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4, it is seen that the said order has not been addressed to the respondent No. 1.
Therefore, when a copy of the order dated 09.02.2022 is not even sent or shown to have been served on the respondent no. 1, merely by taking a stand that the same was communicated to the respondent no.1 as an enclosure to the letter dated 28.02.2022 cannot be accepted as the photocopy of the letter dated 28.02.2022 does not refer to any enclosure to the said communication.
As stated hereinbefore, the copy of the said letter was annexed to the writ petition (at page 47 of the Memo of Appeal and page 82 of the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent no. 1 against the affidavit-in-opposition of proforma respondent no. 3), does not contain any reference to the purported approval order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the proforma respondent no. 3.
It is well-settled that if an order is not communicated to the affected person, in this case the respondent no.1, that would vitiate the impugned approval order dated 09.02.2022, as the proforma respondent no. 4 was not a competent authority to communicate to the respondent no.1 about her voluntary retirement from 28.02.2022.
In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.K. Singhal (supra), referred above, where it has been held that the voluntary retirement did not come automatically on expiry of the notice period, and that it could take effect only after acceptance of the notice by the Government, and that the acceptance must also be communicated.
Moreover, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 11 had laid down the law that unless the order affecting the person is served, such an un-communicated order is non est in the eye of law. The relevant part of paragraph 10 thereof is quoted below:-
“10.The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The Constitution, therefore, requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of PEPSU provide, that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may further observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser and that the head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh [Till the abolition of that office by the Amendment of the Constitution in 1956.], is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the “order” of the State Government? Therefore, to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned. In this connection we may quote the following from the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh [AIR (1961) SC 493, 512]:
“Mr Gopal Singh attempted to argue that before the final order was passed the Council of Ministers had decided to accept the respondent's representation and to reinstate him, and that, according to him, the respondent seeks to prove by calling the two original orders. We are unable to understand this argument. Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the respondent.” Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.”
In this case in hand, the appellant has not been able to show how and in what mode/manner, the approval order dated 09.02.2022, purportedly issued by the proforma respondent no.3 was communicated to the respondent no.1. There is also no explanation at all as to why the proforma respondent no.3 could not issue any communication to the respondent no.1 about approval and acceptance of her application dated 20.12.2021, to go on voluntary retirement. Thus, the appellants have failed to show that the purported approval order dated 09.02.2022 was communicated by the proforma respondent no.3 to the respondent no.1.
Moreover, as already referred above, the entries of Jt.01/VRS/B.D/2021/829 dated 28.02.2022 and Jt.01/VRS/BD/2021/829-A dated 09.02.2022 were made after the signature of the proforma respondent No. 4 in the issue register, which can lead to only presumption that the said entries were made subsequent to the last entry in the issue register after serial no. 828 dated 24.02.2022. The said communications are entered after Entry No. 828 dated 24.02.2022. However, before Entry nos. 829 and 829-A, the seal of Treasury Officer, Jorhat is clearly seen, and above that is the signature of the proforma respondent no.5, which implies that the relevant page of the Issue Register was closed.
Accordingly, in view of the discussions, finding and decision referred to above, and in view of the decision on Point of determination nos. I, II, and III, as discussed above, the Court does not find any reason to take a view contrary to that of the learned Single Judge, who is found to have considered each and every aspect of the matter and has arrived at a just and proper decision in allowing the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Point of determination no. IV is answered in the negative and against the appellant by holding that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with.
As a result, the challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3664/2022 fails. Consequently, this writ appeal stands dismissed. The said judgment and order dated 04.11.2022, under challenge in this Intra-Court appeal, is affirmed.
The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Accordingly, the interim order passed on 13.10.2025, passed in the connected I.A.(Civil) No. 3161/2025 stands vacated.
Consequently, the consequences of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2022, as specifically provided in paragraph 37 and 38 thereof would follow.
Moreover, in view of the order dated 03.06.2022 and 07.12.2022, passed in W.P.(C) 3664/2022, and in view of the non-denial of the stand of the respondent no.1 that after certified copy of order dated 03.06.2022 was served, the proforma respondent no.4 provides an extra attendance register solely for her, the appellants and the proforma respondent nos.3 and 4 shall have to treat that the respondent no.1 was attending her duties after 03.06.2022 for all intents and purpose including payment of salary. The Court takes note of the statement made by the respondent no.1 in paragraph-7 of her affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by proforma respondent no.4 that she would be retiring in January, 2026.