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. 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.

(2.) 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 shit 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 respondents No. 3 & 4 have submitted an affidavit -in -op -position. 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.

(3.) BE that as it may, the respondent in their own wisdom did not initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for imposing any penalty. But this does not mean that the authorities have forfeited their rights of recovering their money from the petitioner. The order dated 23.05.2008 only speaks of the recovery of amount. It does not cost any stigma in him and as such he cannot be said to be prejudiced in the process. The writ petitioner, therefore, is bound to refund the said amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ -. At the time of admission of this writ petition, on 30.09.2008, an interim order was passed allowing monthly deduction of Rs. 2500/ - instead of Rs. 5000/ -, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner for a period of 1 year 4 months have not been paid by the respondent in the meantime, the respondent authority shall release the balance of his salary to the petitioner after making recovery of sum of Rs. 1,30,000/ -. If the said submission is correct, the respondent shall release the balance amount with arrear salary of the petitioner and other benefits, after recovering the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ -. A copy of this enquiry report is kept on record. It shall be made as a part of record. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.