KRISHNA KANTA LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while was serving as UDA under the respondents was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.12.95. Although he was reinstated in service on revocation of the order of suspension by an order dated 26.07.96, a charge sheet was issued to him on 12.05.97. Two charges were framed against the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement of defence. The charge sheet was issued under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal ) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The two charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows: Charge No. 1: While you were serving as Lower Division Assistant in Power (Elect.), Mines and Minerals Department, you were dealing with the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court case C.R. No. 2651/91 in the File No. PEL. 153/91. The Hon'ble High Court had passed an interim order on 05.06.92 in the above mentioned Civil Rule with a direction to keep reserved 4(four) posts of Deputy Electrical Inspector for promotion of Sub-Asstt. Electrical Inspector till the disposal of the case by the High Court. You had given a note in the relevant file on 24.07.92 but the file was not submitted by you to the higher authority. You are, therefore, charged with gross negligence and dereliction of duties. Charge No. 2: Later, on a proposal for extension of term of ad hoc appointment for a further period of four month in favour of three persons functioning as Deputy Electrical Inspector appointed under Rule 3(1) of the ABSC (ad hoc) Appointment Rule, the matter was put up by you on 01.09.92 for approval of higher authority in the File No. PEL. 213/85/Pt.I but nowhere in this note dated 01.09.92 did you indicate the above mentioned interim order dated 05.06.92 of the Hon'ble Gauahati High Court. The proposal for extension of ad hoc appointment as stated in your note dated 01.09.92 received approval of the competent higher authority of the Department and Government Notification No. PEL 213/85/Pt.I/24 dated 17.09.92 was issued by the Power etc. Department. You are, therefore, charged with suppression of fact and negligence of duty.

(2.) The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 17.07.97 and denied the charges. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted by examining the witnesses and documents. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. As regards the charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer held that there was negligence and lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner. Likewise, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner to be negligent in respect of the second charge. However, the Enquiry Officer also observed that the petitioner was overburdened with the workload of the department which was not be overlooked. The Enquiry Officer in his report suggested a warning to the petitioner.

(3.) After observing formalities, the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 08.02.99 imposed the penalty of withdrawing two increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. As regards the period of suspension, same was decided to be treated as on leave and the petitioner was directed to make a representation against the said decision. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation on 10.03.99 making a grievance against the order of penalty and the decision to treat the period of suspension as on leave. Nothing having been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C)No. 2027/99 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 02.02.2000 providing disposal of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted yet another representation dated 10.02.2000. Thereafter the impugned order dated 08.03.2000 was passed upholding the order of penalty.