High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1622/2000 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMAND AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U .K. Nair along with Mr. A. Chetri, learned counsel representing the Gauhati High Court. 2. The petitioner, an ex-employee (Record Arranger) of this Court, filed th e writ petitions claiming subsistence allowance for the period of suspension (10 /12/1993 to 02/04/1996) and to set aside and quash the order dated 02/04/1996 by which he was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. Whil e in WP(C) No. 2145/199, the petitioner has put to challenge the order of dismis sal, in WP(C) No. 1622/2000 he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance for the period from 10/12/1993 to 02/04/1996 during wh ich he was placed under suspension pending drawal of the departmental proceeding and also in view of his involvement in the related criminal case. 3. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it is an admitted position that the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of his involvement in a criminal proceeding and also pending drawal of departmenta l proceeding, he was entitled to receive subsistence allowance. He further submi ts that as there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice in con ducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner as he was not provided w ith adequate opportunity of being heard, the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in law. 4. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Standing Counsel representing the Gauhati High Co urt countering the above argument, submits that as the facts well speak for itse lf, the petitioner was found to be involved in defalcation of huge Govt. money, as a consequence of which he was arrested by the Police and presently criminal p roceedings are pending against him. He further submits that departmental proceed ings was also initiated against the petitioner in which it was clearly establish ed that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him and considering the gr avity of the misconduct, the disciplinary authority thought it prudent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. He also submits that the petitioner was provided with all reasonable opportunities of being heard and thus the allegati on of violation of the principles of natural justice is absurd and untenable. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. The petitioner while was serving as Record Arranger of this Court was placed under s uspension by order dated 10/12/1993 pending drawal of departmental proceeding. H e was found involved in defalcation of huge amount of Govt. money and accordingl y criminal proceedings was also initiated against him. In the departmental proce eding, the following charges were levelled against him vide Charge Sheet dated 7 /121/1994. (cid:28)1. That you have been working as Record arranger attached to the Accounts Secti on of the principal Seat of Gauhati High Court at Guwahati since 29.9.82 till 10 .12.93 (Date of your suspension from service). During the period from 9.7.90 to 12.11.93, you were entrusted with 214 (two hundred fourteen) T.A. Bills, Medica l Bills etc amounting to Rs.10,90,683/- (Rupees Ten lakhs ninety thousand Six hu ndred eighty three) only for encashment from the Treasury. While encashing the a foresaid bills you had inflated the amount of money in each of the aforesaid 214 (two hundred and fourteen) bills by inserting, overwriting and erasing the figu res and letters in each of the aforesaid 214 bills and thereby drawn total exces s amount of money to the tune of Rs.21,43,526/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs forty th ree thousand five hundred and twenty six) only which is more than the total spec ified amount of money namely Rs.10,90,683/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety thousand si x hundred eighty three) only in the aforesaid 214 bills. Thus, you had caused wr ongful loss to the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.21,43,526/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs forty three thousand five hundred and twenty six) only. You have thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharging your official duties as Record Arranger and in fact, you had committed forgery by inserting, o verwriting and erasing the figures and letters in each of the 214 bills dishones tly, fraudulently and without any lawful authority with intent to cause wrongful loss of such a huge amount to the public Exchequer and to make a wrong-ful gain to yourself by using the aforesaid forged 214 bills. 2. That you in the capacity of being Record Arranger attached to Accounts Secti on of the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court at Guwahati and having been entru sted with the duty and responsibility of encashing 214 bills (T.A.Bills, Medical Bills etc) amounting to Rs.10,90,683/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety thousand six hu ndred eighty three) only from the Treasury and to deposit the amount mentioned i n the aforesaid bills to the Cashier of the Accounts Section of the Principal Se at of Gauhati High Court at Guwahati and while discharging your aforesaid duty, you committed forgery in respect of the aforesaid 214 bills and thereby drew exc ess amount of money to the tune of Rs.21,43,526.00(Rupees twenty one lakhs forty three thousand five hundred and twenty six) only and defaulcated the aforesaid amount for your personal gain. Thus you have dishonestly and fraudulently misapp ropriated Rs.21,43,526/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs forty three thousand five hundr ed twenty six) only by committing forgery and by abusing your position of record Arranger. 3. That you have acquired properties both movable and immovable either in your name or in the name of members of your family amounting to not less than Rs.20, 00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only, without prior information and permission fr om the Registry in violation of Rule 52 of the Gauhati High Court Services etc. Rules,1967. 4. That you by your aforesaid illegal, fraudulent and dishonest acts have not only submitted forgery and misappropriated public money to the tune of Rs.21,43, 526/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs forty three thousand five hundred and twenty six) only but also failed to maintain absolute integrity, honesty and devotion to du ty as expected of a responsible employee of Gauhati High Court. 5. That you absented yourself from attending the office of the High Court from 10.12.93 till date without permission from the competent authority. You were ar rested by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department for ACB PS Case NO.18/94 under section 409 I.P.C. and were in police custody. You did not report the fact to the High Court authority and thus, you have violated Rule 59 of the High Cou rt Rules, 1967. You are, therefore, charged with violation of Rule 59 of the sai d Rules (cid:29). 6. The petitioner was directed to submit written statement and he was also provided with the opportunity to inspect the documents. Along with the charge sh eet he was also served with the copies of the statement of allegations, document s, names of witnesses, etc. It is an admitted position that inspite of receipt o f the charge sheet, the petitioner did not submit any written statement of defen ce. As recorded in the enquiry report dated 02/04/1996, the petitioner was given enumerable chances to defend his case in the enquiry proceeding but he did not avail the same. As recorded in the said order, the Disciplinary Authority examin ed 8(eight) witnesses and exhibited number of documents. On conclusion of the en quiry proceeding, it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood established in the enquiry. The enquiry report is dated 27.12.1995. 7. On the basis of the enquiry report and the materials available on record and also the reply submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority pass ed the impugned order dated 02/04/1996 imposing the penalty of dismissal from se rvice on the petitioner. In the detailed order, the Disciplinary Authority discu ssed the pros-and-cons of the entire matter in reference to the evidence on reco rd and also the opportunity granted to the petitioner to defend his case.
Decision
8. Above being the position, it cannot be said to be a case of denial of op portunity to the petitioner to defend his case. On perusal of the writ petition, what is found is that there is only a vague and indefinite statement without di sclosing any material particulars that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. However, not to speak of pleading any prejudice caused to the petitioner, there is also no whisper and / or disclosur e of any materials which prejudicially affected the defence of the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2145/1999 and accordingly the same stands dismissed. 10. As regard the prayer made in the WP(C) No. 1622/2000 for payment of subs istence allowance of the period in question, it is seen that he was directed to submit documents regarding non-employment as it was revealed that he was engaged in some kind of business. Although, the petitioner had submitted application to the effect that he was not employed during the said period but the authority wh en asked to substantiate the said plea, he declined to respond to the same. This being the position, the prayer for payment of subsistence allowance cannot be g ranted unless the petitioner meets with the requirements as was asked for from h im. 11. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above manner. There shall be no order as to costs.