KANTESWAR RAJBONGSHI Vs. STATFED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed to issue of a mandamus to quash the order dated 2.4.96 passed by the Managing Director, STATFED with a further prayer to direct payment of backwages along with other benefits for the post of Godown Assistant on and from 19.3.94. The petitioner herein was a Godown Assistant and on 19th March, 1994 an order of suspension was passed as against him. The relevant portion of that order is quoted below: "Whereas on perusal of the records it appears that Shri Kanteswar Rajbojigshi Godown Assistant, STATFED Head Office Shopping Corner while he was functioning as I/c, Wholesale Counter during the period from 1.4.93 to 12.2.94 has misappropriated a stock worth Rs.48,509.00 (Rupees forty eight thousand five hundred nine) only."

(2.) Thereafter, charge sheet was issued along with the statement of allegations, lists of documents and also the list of witnesses i.e. annexure-2 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure-

(3.) In the reply he highlighted that there was shortage in the godown, but that was because of the fact that he had to shift certain items at the behest of the superior officer. The petitioner examined 4 witnesses in support of his case. It was the finding that during the period the petitioner was incharge of the Wholesale counter of Head Office Shopping Corner from 1.4.93 to 12.2.94. There was shortage of stock worth Rs.48,509.00 and it was further found that the delinquent officer is accountable for the misappropriation of the stocks which was duly instructed to him. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ application informing him to submit reply. Vide Annexure-6 the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter vide Annexure-7, the disciplinary authority i.e. Managing Director, STATFED having agreed with the findings, passed the order of punishment by which the petitioner was demoted to the post of Night Chowkidar with immediate effect. It was further ordered that the misappropriated amount will be realised from his pay @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The period of suspension was treated as not on duty and financial benefits for the period of suspension was limited to the subsistance allowance already drawn by him. The petitioner submitted an appeal vide Annexure-8, but the appeal was not disposed of as yet. Hence this writ application.