High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4360/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
None appears for the petitioner. Ms. U. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) appears for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of th e order of penalty dated 05.04.2004 passed by the Managing Director, ASTC imposi ng the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) from the petitioner with the further direction that the petitioner would not be entitled to anything exc ept the assistance allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspensio n. Case of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, he was serving as Station Superintendent, ASTC, Nagaon. Pending drawal of departmental proceeding, he was placed under suspension by order dated 24.02.1997. Thereafter, show caus e notice dated 24.07.1997 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Regulation 82 of the AST C Employees Service Regulations 1971 as to why any of the penalties prescribed i n Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be inflicted on him on the charges framed against the petitioner. As per charge No. 1, there was allegation of misappropri ation of ASTC revenue amounting to Rs. 5,47,528.00 by the petitioner in collusi on with one Shri Noor Mahammad Ali, Assistant Engineer by way of shortage of Dep ot Oil in ASTC Dhubri Pump. The second charge related to unauthorized purchase o f Depot Oil of 78,854 liters from private pump involving an amount of Rs. 5,29,0 78.50. Thus, the petitioner was charged with committing an act of misappropriati on of ASTC revenue, acting in an unauthorized manner and also committing breach of trust. Petitioner submitted his written statement. It appears that the reply of the pet itioner was not found satisfactory and accordingly, an enquiry was ordered. In the meanwhile, by order dated 03.09.1998 passed by the Managing Director, pet itioner was reinstated in service. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report wherein the c harges against the petitioner were held proved. Accordingly, the Managing Direct or issued order dated 24.1.1998 directing recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) from the dues payable to the petitioner. Petitioner retired from service on retaining the age of superannuation on 30.11. 1998. Petitioner challenged the penalty imposed on him before this Court in WP(C) No. 555/1999. Main ground taken was that copy of the enquiry report was not furnishe d to him before imposition of the penalty. This Court by an interim order dated 20.09.2000 directed that leaving aside the penalty amount, the balance retiral d ues should be paid to the petitioner. WP(C) No. 555/1999 was finally disposed of by this Court by the order dated 08/12/2003. The penalty order dated 24.11.1998 was set aside, remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority to proce ed de-novo. Since copy of the enquiry report was already placed on record in the proceedings of the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner was given liberty to sub mit a representation before the disciplinary authority against such report. In t he event any adverse order was passed, petitioner was given liberty to prefer ap peal as provided under the law. This Court noted that the penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) had already been recovered from the retirement dues of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had submitted a representation against the enquir y report, which was considered by the Managing Director, being the disciplinary authority. However, the same was not accepted and the impugned order dated 05.04 .2004 was passed. Though appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Directors, ASTC ag ainst the order of penalty, no decision was taken thereon. Aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. I have perused the documents placed on record and also heard Ms. U Baruah, learn ed Standing Counsel, ASTC. A perusal of the materials on record would show that the charges framed against the petitioner were quite serious in nature. It is related to misappropriation o f money belonging to the ASTC which in the course of the enquiry were proved. Du ring the enquiry, petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to defend hims elf. Following the intervention of this Court, petitioner submitted representati on against the report of the Enquiry Officer, which was considered but could not be accepted. Impugned order dated 05.04.2004 reads as follows:- (cid:28)Carefully examined the representation filed by Sri Rana Pratap Hazarika, Ex- St ation Superintendent, ASTC, Nagaon against the inquiry report in pursuance of th e order dt. 8-12-03 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Guwahati in WP(C) No. 555/9 9 along with other connected papers in the proceeding including the enquiry repo rt and found that the charges levelled against him are established. The Inquiry Officer duly conducted the enquiry into the charges levelled against him in pre sence of Sri Rana Pratap Hazarika and he was given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself and allow him to cross-examine the witnesses during the period o f enquiry. The enquiry was duly conducted and there was no any material irregul arities in conducting the said enquiry. The proceeding was drawn up against Sri Noor Mahamad Ali, who misappropriated ASTC revenue amounting to Rs.5,47,528.00 in collusion with Sri Rana Pratap Hazarika and disposed of the proceeding and pa ssed order for recovery of 50% of the defaulcated amount i.e., 2,73,764.00 only. The offence committed by Sri Hazarika was in serious nature causing losses of h uge ASTC revenue and the punishment of removal from service was proportionate w ith the offences committed by Sri Hazarika. As Sri Hazarika was normally retire d from his service w.e.f. 30-11-98, the disciplinary authority considered his ca se leniently and came to the conclusion that recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from him wou ld be proper and justified in case of such retired employee. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh only of the misappropriated amount be recovered from him from his dues pa yable to him by Corporation and he will not be entitled to anything except subsi stence allowance already drawn by him during the period of his suspension. (cid:29)
Decision
Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations brought against the petit ioner, which were proved in the departmental proceeding, I am of the view that n o interference is called for. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.