DHARMESWAR CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondents, PWD.

(2.) The necessary facts leading to file this writ petition inter-alia are that the petitioner, on the basis of a recruitment made by PWD to fill-up certain existing vacancies of Jr. Engineers, was appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC Regulation (Limitation of function) 1951 and thereafter vide notification No. E/ l8 A/273/67/1 dated 7.12.1967 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B), the service of 339 Jr. Engineers including the petitioner were regularised.

(3.) In the said list of regularization, the name of the petitioner finds its place at Serial No. 275. The initial appointment of the petitioner was at Jr. Engineer at Dibrugarh N. H. Division. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to different places of the State of Assam. While petitioner was in charge of Sectional officer at Tinsukia, he had to face a departmental proceeding, alleging certain irregularities against him. In the said proceeding, petitioner was inflicted with punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,89,272/-. The said order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in Case No. 33 ATA/95. The learned Tribunal after hearing the appeal, allowed the same and set aside punishment inflicted upon the petitioner inflicted upon him in the departmental proceeding vide judgment and order dated 25.4.96. In the said judgment and order it was also directed that in the event of recovery of any amount from the petitioner, the same should be refunded to the petitioner. On passing of the aforesaid judgment the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) vide order dated 29.11.96 directed that the recovery order issued form his office vide order dated 4.8.94 and 15.5.95 in respect of the petitioner would remain stayed and it was also directed by the said order that an amount of Rs. 9,840/- already recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him. Although, the learned tribunal kept it open for the department to initiate fresh departmental proceeding, the department considered it fit not to initiate such further proceeding and the sai'd departmental proceeding come to an end and petitioner was absolved from all the charges in view of the order of the tribunal, referred to above, for all intents and purposes.