RAJ SOBHAN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dtd. 12/11/2013 of imposition of the penalty of withholding of three numbers of increments with cumulative effect in a disciplinary proceeding is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The challenge is based on the procedural irregularities as well as on the merits of the allegations made against the petitioner delinquent.

(2.) The facts projected in the writ petition are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as a Sub-Register in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). Vide an order dtd. 15/3/2008, the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, the said order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 24/9/2009. In the meantime, the show-cause notice under Sec. 9 of the Assam (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 was served upon the petitioner on 10/9/2018. The principal allegation was of undervaluing 15 numbers of Deeds which were registered by the petitioner as the Registering Officer. It was alleged that there was violation of Sec. 27A (1) of the Indian Stamp (Assam) (Amendment) Act 2004. Reference has also been made to a communication from the Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) dtd. 5/12/2003 on the aspect of valuation of land in Greater Guwahati. The petitioner had submitted his written statement wherein he had taken the defence that the communication dtd. 5/12/2003 was never served in the office of the petitioner and therefore he was not aware of the same. It was further stated that the same was merely an inter-office communication which could not have been acted upon to the detriment of the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had furnished an enquiry report wherein a finding was arrived at that the petitioner being a responsible Government officer ought to have the knowledge of the communication dtd. 5/12/2003. The petitioner was served with the second show-cause notice which he had replied. After consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority had issued the impugned order on 12/11/2013 whereby the penalty of withholding of three numbers of increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. As indicated above, it is the legality and validity of the order of penalty which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, who has also produced the records in original of the departmental proceeding.