UTPAL RAJKONWAR Vs. OFFICE OF THE DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question as to whether a criminal proceeding as well as a departmental enquiry, on the same set of facts, can proceed simultaneously, which has frequently arisen, confronts the Court in the present writ proceeding also. The facts leading to the institution of the present case by the writ petitioner may be briefly summarized as below. An FIR was lodged with the Dibrugarh Police Station on 2.6.2003 alleging that on 7.3.2003 the writ petitioner, who was then working as the Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts) in the Dibrugarh University, put up a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,57,240.00 for signature of the Registrar. The Registrar, on verification, found certain irregularities in the supply orders and the bill raised by the supplier in respect of the payment covered by the cheque in question and, therefore, a direction was issued to verify the matter, in course of which verification it was revealed that though the supply order issued to one M/s Padmini Printing Press, was for 6000 Nos of envelopes, in the bill submitted by the supplier, a new item, i.e., 'Roll sheet of BA Part 1' was inserted. As the verification revealed forgery and falsification of accounts, some other bills which were recently paid to the same supplier M/s Padmini Printing Press were scrutinized and the said payments were also found to have been paid on the basis of certain tamperings and forgeries committed. In the FIR filed, it was further stated that the matter having been drawn to the notice of the Vice Chancellor, a committee consisting of one Professor Shri H. Goswami and Professor Shri AM Phukan was constituted to investigate the matter and the said committee conducted an investigation bv perusing the different supply orders, challans, bills, vouchers, stock book, registers, payment register, peon books etc for the period January, 2000 to March, 2003. According to the first informant, such enquiry, and investigation revealed that the prevailing procedure and practice with regard to the placing of supply orders and processing of bills for payment were adhered to in all cases except in the case of M/s Padmini Printing Press. In so far as the aforesaid supplier M/s Padmini Printing Press is concerned, the committee, on investigation found that during the period 4.2.2000 to 1.1.2003, 51 different print orders were issued by the Examination Branch of the University to M/s Padmini Printing Press. Out of the aforesaid 51 print orders, only 43 were found to be available and the committee constituted found tampering, forgery and falsification of account in respect of 38 bills/vouchers. The committee also found that while placing the print orders with the supplier, i.e., M/s Padmini Printing Press and in processing the bills submitted for payment as well as in making payment to the said supplier, the Examination Branch as well as the Finance and Accounts Branch of the University had failed to adhere to the established procedure, as a consequence of which, an amount of Rs.30,08, 745.00 was fraudulently drawn by the aforesaid supplier, i.e., M/s Padmini Printing Press. On the aforesaid facts, the Registrar of the University, by means of the FIR filed on 2.6.2003, requested the investigating authority to register a case in respect of the incident alleged and take appropriate action in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR filed, Dibrugarh PS Case No.222/03 under sections 120B/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The said case is presently pending investigation.

(2.) On the same date, i.e., on 2.6.2003, a show cause notice under Article 33 of the Dibrugarh University Employees Service Conditions Ordinance, 2000 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Article 33 of the Ordinance should not be inflicted on the charges mentioned in Annexure I to the show cause. The statement of allegations on which the charges were founded together with a list of witnesses and a list of documents were enclosed as Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the show cause notice dated 2.6.2003. A perusal of the Articles of charges read with the statements of allegations in support of the charges as enclosed to the show cause notice dated 2.6.2003 would go to show that the writ petitioner, who was at the relevant time Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts) of the University was charged with misconduct on account of failure to attend to duties assigned by the competent authority as well as failure to maintain absolute integrity, honesty and devotion to duty thereby facilitating the excess payment of an amount of Rs. 30,08,745.00 to the M/s Padmini Printing Press. A further charge of commission of forgery and falsification of accounts either by the petitioner himself or through other persons in connivance and conspiracy with M/s Padmini Printing Press, thereby facilitating the aforesaid excess payment, was also levelled against the writ petitioner.

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner prayed for inspection of the documents mentioned in Annexure 4 to the show cause notice dated 2.6.2003. The application for inspection having been allowed, the petitioner inspected the documents and at the conclusion of such inspection, submitted a representation dated 14.7.2003 before the Registrar of the University asking for postponement/deferment of the departmental proceeding, at least, till such a stage when sufficient progress in the criminal case is reached. The grounds on which the aforesaid postponement was sought by the writ petitioner, appear to be that the simultaneous conduct of the two proceedings may have the effect of prejudicing the writ petitioner in the criminal case, inasmuch as, he would be required to disclose in the departmental proceeding what would be his possible defence in the criminal case. The aforesaid request of the writ petitioner having been negatived by the Registrar by his order dated 22.7.2003, the instant writ petition has been filed calling into question the actions of the University in proceeding with the departmental enquiry initiated on the basis of the show cause notice dated 2.6.2003.