RANJIT PATOWARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. M Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. MD Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. J Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in the Assam State Transport Corporation (in short ASTC).

(2.) The petitioner is a conductor in the ASTC and he was appointed as a driver-cum-conductor on contractual basis at a monthly remuneration of Rs.6,000.00 per month. By an order of 12/3/2018 of the Managing Director of ASTC, the petitioner was placed under suspension subject to payment of subsistence allowance. The order of 12/3/2018 provides that it had been revealed from a report dtd. 16/2/2018 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, ASTC that while conducting a surprise check in the Khanapara to Dimu via Kachari passenger service Bus No. AS 20/1823 at Walford at about 1.40 p.m., the checking officer found that the bus conductor namely Sri Ranjit Patowary, who was driver-cum-conductor had carried 74 numbers of passengers. On a query, the conductor did not produce the time sheet of the service with a mala-fide intention to misappropriate/steal the revenue of the corporation for his personal gain. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was contemplated. The order of suspension provides that such alleged act on the part of the petitioner attracted penalties subject to drawal of departmental proceeding as per provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short Rules of 1964) read with Regulation 82 of the Assam State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation, 1971 (in short Regulation 1971) for violation of Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, a show cause notice dtd. 24/5/2018 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 read with Regulation 82 of the Regulation 1971 as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 should not be imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) The Charge No. 1 as per the show cause notice is that when the vehicle of the petitioner was checked at Walford around 12.30 p.m. on 12/2/2018, 74 numbers of passengers on board were found and upon the enquiry of the Vigilance team, the petitioner could not produce the time sheet of the service. The Charge No. 2 is that on 12/2/2018, the petitioner ought to have obtained the time sheet prior to the departure of the service, but he did not do so and performed duties without time sheet. The Charge No. 3 is that the aforesaid act on the part of the petitioner amounted to a gross misconduct.