JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Roy, learned State counsel for the Respondents.
2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 4.7.2002 (Annexure C to the writ petition) whereby their services as Muster Roll Workers under the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barpeta Division, Barpeta were directed to be terminated on the ground that they were arrested by the police in connection with a criminal case. The petitioners claimed that they were appointed as Muster Roll Workers in the years 1986 and 1988 respectively and had been discharging their duties with sincerely and honesty to the satisfaction of all concerned authorities. On 7.6.2002 they were arrested and taken into judicial custody on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 4.6.2002 which was lodged and registered as Barpeta Police Station Case No. 230/2002 under Section 396/397 IPC. The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. In course of the alleged incident, one Nikunja Pathak @ Dhanonjay Pathak who was the Section Assistant of Nagaon Section under the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barpeta Division died and another Sri Nibaran Pathak was sustained serious the injuries subsequently in course of the investigation, a diary maintained by the deceased was seized in which the names of the persons to whom the deceased used to lend money were mentioned. Incidentally the names of the present petitioners, were also found therein. It was on that suspicion, the petitioners were arrested. They were, however, released on bail on 6.7.2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta on perusal of the case diary. In the meantime, in view of the arrest to the petitioners in the criminal case, their services were terminated as referred to above.
3. Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioners in the above back ground of facts has submitted that as the petitioners have been released on bail on a perusal of the case diary by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta suggesting that the petitioners were not involved in the offence, the termination of their services on that consideration is patently illegal and unjustified. He further submitted that as the investigation of the criminal case is pending and is likely to continue for quite sometime, they being poor labourers living from hand to mouth, would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are kept out of service till the investigation is complete and the trial is over. Mr. Uzir, therefore, has prayed for an appropriate direction to the respondents to take back the petitioners in service pending final decision after the trial in the criminal case.
4. Mr. J. Roy learned State counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the above prayer and has submitted that the petitioners were admittedly Muster Roll Workers and that they have no right as such to claim reinstatement. Moreover, as they were found involved in the criminal case, their services were rightly terminated and as the investigation of the criminal case is pending, no direction ought to be issued by this Court as prayed for.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view, that a direction for reinstatement as prayed for is not called for. It however, has to be noticed that termination of the services of the petitioners is solely on the ground of their arrest in connection with the criminal case, and for not any other reason. They have been serving in the department for long 16/17 years and there is no complaint with regard to their conduct during the services career or the quality of their service. The fact that the petitioners were released on bail is also not without any bearing.
6. Be that as it may, inspite of the above, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the respondents to reinstatement the petitioners. It would be open for the petitioners to approach the Executive Engineer P.W.D. (Road), Barpeta Division, Barpeta-respondent No. 3 with a representation for their reinstatement in service stating the above facts, and if, the same is done, the said authority would consider and dispose of the same positively within a period of one month therefrom bearing in mind that they had been serving in the department for long and that they had been released on bail by the learned court below in connection with the criminal case in which they were arrested.
7. With the above directions and observations this writ petition stands disposed. No costs.