High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3012/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, along with Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. J. Bora, learned counsel representing the Sta
Legal Reasoning
tefed. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-6 order dated 11.6.2002, by which, pursu ant to a departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner, while in service as Inspector under the respondents in its Karim ganj Branch was issued with the show cause notice dated 28/30.10.1996 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. By the said chargesh eet, altogether three charges were brought against the petitioner, which are as follows: i) You are charged with the loss of Rs. 180.55 qtls of superfine rice on PP S A/C valued at Rs. 1,23,257.87 (Rupees one lakh twenty three thousand two hundr ed fufty seven and paise eighty seven) only. Rs. 682.68 per qtl. ii) You are charged with the loss of 325.78 qtls of superfine rice on PDS/AC valued at Rs. 2,22,403.49/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty two thousand four hundred three paise forty nine) only, Rs. 682.68 per qtl. iii) You are charged with dereliction of duty. (cid:29)
Legal Reasoning
Along with the chargheet, statement of allegation, list of documents, list of wi tnesses were also furnished. Responding to the chargesheet, the petitioner in hi s reply dated 19.11.1996 denied the charges. However, in paragraph-2, he made th e following statement: (cid:28)That Sir, in this connection, I beg to state that on 5/10/95 in the morning Sri R.C. Saha representative of authorized contractor of M/s. Bimalendu Roy came to my residence accompanied by 3 (three) other people including his son & produced before me 3 (three) challans of trucks as a token of carrying rice from F.C.I. godown, Silchar to Karimganj Statefed godown and told me to sign these (3) three challans which I refused at which they became furious, and threaten me with dir e consequences if I did not put my signature at the said challans. They, further , threaten to lift my 9 years old son from his School if I refused. It was about 9-30 A.M. in the morning & my son was already left for School. They further wan ted to assault me if I further refused. I am an outsider in this station & I bec ame panicky at all such threatening & I became fully nervous, I could not resist myself any further & in these compelling circumstances I put signatures on the 3 (three) truck challans. Sri R.C. Saha & his companions thereafter left my resi dence leaving 3 (three) Gate Passes outside my residence on a bench kept in my V aranda. (cid:29) On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding t he petitioner guilty of all the three charges. The report was submitted on 20.3. 1998. Thereafter observing due formalities, the petitioner was furnished with th e enquiry report, to which also, the petitioner responded by submitting his repl y. After the aforesaid development, the Managing Director of Statefed having passed the impugned order dated 11.7.2002 dismissing the petitioner from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules, 1964. The a ppeal was preferred before the Chairman, Statefed. The appeal having not been di sposed of, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the impugned order of dismissal from service. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report being not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 9 (7) of the Rules of 1964, Disciplinary Authority could not have passed the impugned order on the basis of such an enquiry report. He submits that the Enquiry Officer ought to have return ed the finding by detailing reasons in respect of all the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer having not done so, the enquiry report is not sustainable in law . Ms. J. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Statefed, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry having been conducted in a transparent of fair manner, the writ pet ition is liable to be dismissed. More particularly, when the petitioner was invo lved in financial irregularity. She submits that the management of the Statefed having lost its confidence on the petitioner, it was justified on the part of th e Disciplinary Authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. More particular ly, when all the charges were found to have been established in the departmental enquiry. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to lo ng length of service of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate. While admitting loss of confidence by the manageme nt, more particularly in respect of the charge No. 3, he submits that the same m ay not entail extreme penalty of dismissal from service and accordingly, this co urt exercising judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to interfere with the same providing any other lesser penalty. Emphasiz ing the need for an alternative punishment entitling the petitioner to get some pensionary benefit, he submits that such benefit would go a long way for surviva l of family members of the petitioner. Opposing the aforesaid submission, Ms. J. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Statef ed submits that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not be swayed by an y sympathy. She submits that the petitioner involved in financial irregularity i s not entitled to any sympathy of this Court. She also submits that this Court e xercising writ jurisdiction cannot substitute the punishment that has already be en imposed by the disciplinary authority in consideration of the seriousness of the charges which were leveled against the petitioner and found to have been est ablished in the enquiry. Admittedly, when the writ petition was filed, Appellate Authority in respect of the impugned order of dismissal was the Chairman, Statefed. However, the Statefe d has gone on liquidation and now Statefed is managed by official liquidator. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the official liquidator to take on record the Annexure-7 appeal 10.10.2002 and dispose of the same taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law. Let the appeal be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from tod