WP(C) 1602/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Das, assisted by Mr. Singha, learned counsel for th e petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Seal, learned Standing Counsel, Excise. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure -4 charge sheet date d 24.3.2009, by which three charges had been levelled against him. According to the petitioner the said chargesheet could not have been issued in view of the ea rlier chargesheet dated 27.12.2005 in respect of more or less the same charge. A ccording to the petitioner, although the impugned chargesheet dated 24.3.2009 sp eaks of three charges but if read together, it will go to show that the said cha rgesheet is the replica of the earlier chargesheet dated 23.12.05. The Annexure -1 Charge against the petitioner is as follows - Charge No. 1: While you were working as Superintendent of Excise, Sonitpur, T ezpur, some people died in the month of October, 2005 due to alleged consumption of illicit liquor. One of the duty of a Superintendent of Excise is to check pr oduction and consumption of illicit liquor in the areas under his jurisdiction. You being the Superintendent of Excise Sonitpur failed to discharge your duties properly in time. As a result such a pathetic and tragic accident had occurred. You are, therefore charged for your negligence and inefficiency in the duties. 3. The three charges levelled against the petitioner by the impugne d charge sheet dated 24.3.09 are as follows : Charge No. 1 : That while you were posted at Tezpur as Superintendent of Excise , undisturbed and unabated distillation and sale of illicit liquor in Sonitpur D istrict particularly in Dhenukhanda Pahar on the bank of Brahmaputra just near t he Tezpur town were going on. Also free sale of illicitly distilled alcohol mixi ng with methyl alcohol in high proportion were going on. As a result by consumpt ion of such illicit liquor total 17(seventeen) persons dies on 30.9.2005 and 1.1 0.2005 and also 3(three) persons became complete blind. You did not take necessary steps to curb the distillation of ill icit prevailing in the district of Sonitpur and to stop the selling of illicitly distilled alcohol mixing with methyl alcohol leading to death of 17(seventeen) persons and to cause complete blindness to 3(three) persons. Thus you, as an Exc ise Administrative Officer, failed to render your duties properly and thereby yo u are charged with negligence of duties. Charge No. 2 : That while your were posted at Tezpur as Superintendent of Excis e, some 17(seventeen) persons died on 30.9.2005 and 1.10.2005 and 3(three) perso ns became complete blind due to consumption of illicit liquor mixing with methyl alcohol. You did not perform your duties and conduct necessary raids to stop th e sale of illicit liquor. Though some Excise raids were conducted the cases were not sent to court due to which there was not much fear among the illicit distil lers and bootleggers. You are, therefore, charged with responsibility and dereliction of duties which are unbecoming of Govt. servant in violation of Rule 3(1) (i) (i i) and (iii) of Assam Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965. Charge No. 3 : That while you were posted at Tezpur as Superintendent of Exci se, some 17(seventeen) persons died on 30.9.2005 and 1.10.2005 and 3(three) pers ons became complete blind due to consumption of illicit liquor mixing with methy l alcohol. In order to give indulgence to the distillers and bootleggers you use d to allow them to continue their activities collecting regularly money from the m in unfair manner. You are, therefore, charged with corruption, malpractice and der eliction of duties which are also unbecoming of a Govt. servant in violation of Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of Assam Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965. 4. According to the respondents, the second chargesheet has been is sued as the report of the Joint Commissioner of Excise which was submitted pursu ant to the enquiry conducted in respect of the first chargesheet wa s not satisfactory. Mr. Das learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if t he petitioner has been absolved of the charge levelled against him by the first chargesheet, that could not have led to the issuance of the second chargesheet i mpugned in this proceeding containing virtually the same charge. 5. I have gone through the records produced by Mrs. Seal, learned S tanding Counsel, Excise, on perusal of which it appears that pursuant to the dep artmental proceeding conducted in respect of the first chargesheet dated 27.12.2 005, an enquiry was conducted pursuant to which the enquiry officer has also sub mitted a report. It was open for the disciplinary authority either to agree with the said report or, disagree with the same. In case of disagreement, the reason for disagreement was required to be furnished to the petitioner. Nothing of the sort was done but instead the second show cause notice dated 24.3.09 was issued . 5. Mrs. Seal learned Standing Counsel submits that the charge Nos. 2 and 3 in the second chargesheet are all together different than the charge in the first chargesheet dated 27.12.05 inasmuch as further allegations of not mak ing necessary raids to stop the sale of illicit liquor and not sending the cases to the court and also allowing to continue the activities collecting regular mo ney from the culprits in unfair manner have been made. 6. If the disciplinary authority wants to proceed with the enquiry conducted pursuant to the charge sheet dated 27.12.05 and/or want to proceed w ith the impugned charge sheet dated 24.3.09(Annexure - 4) it may have recourse t o the following to which the petitioner will also be entitled to raise objection - i) as the records reveal that pursuant to the first charge sheet dated 27.1 2.05 a departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer has also submi tted the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority shall now pass appropriate o rder either agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer or disagreeing with the same but in case of disagreement, the reason thereof should be furnished to the petitioner providing him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the disciplinary authority decides to proceed with the impugned charge sheet dated 24.3.09, it will be open for the petitioner to raise objection agai nst the same agitating the ground that has been urged in the Writ Petition. In c ase of raising objection that the impugned charge sheet is relatable to the earl ier charge sheet dated 27.12.05, the disciplinary authority shall dispassionatel y consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. Let the entire exercise be carried out in terms of this order as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 30th April, 2011. 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed o f.