SUBHA RAM HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for Education Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for SSA appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. G. Sarma, learned State Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of Respondent 5.

(2.) This writ petition has arisen out of an order passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldai, on 23.05.2008 for releasing of sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the present petitioner by deducting Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from his salary holding that the petitioner lost the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- from his custody belonging to the SSA owing to his negligence.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that his school was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- for civil construction. On 12.02.2007, he went to State Bank of India, Mangaldai Branch alone for withdrawal of the aforesaid sanctioned money i.e. Rs. 1,30,000/- and he actually drew the same. He kept the money in his coat's pocket and proceeded towards his home. On his way towards home his wearing coat was soiled by bird sheet and as such he went to a nearby Hydrant for washing his pant. While washing his pant, he claimed to have placed the coat inside a plastic bag and eventually, when he was washing his pant, two miscreants came and ran away with the plastic bag in which the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was kept and when the petitioner became aware he made inquiry but could not make any headway. The petitioner claims to have informed the authorities in this regard, but nothing was done initially. But thereafter, by the impugned order dated 23.05.2008, he was directed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang, for deduction of sum of Rs. 5,000/- from his monthly salary till the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- was recovered, holding that the aforesaid money was lost because of his negligence. It is the case of the petitioner that at the initial stage, official respondent did not hold any enquiry and the decision to recover money was taken arbitrarily. The official respondent Nos.3 & 4 have submitted an affidavit-in-opposition. In paragraph-6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been specifically stated that an inquiry has held by appointing an Inspecting Auditor, Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang as Inquiry Officer. Ample opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to explain his case and place his defence to which he failed. There was no prejudice to the petitioner in any way in course of hearing. The learned Standing Counsel for Education Department has placed the enquiry report. I have gone through the enquiry report and it appears that the allegations made in the report that the authority did not hold any inquiry and passed order for recovery is not correct. There was an enquiry. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing. There was no violation of the principles of the natural justice. There is no allegation that the decision of the authority is a biased or was otherwise vitiated.