LAWS(GAU)-2025-3-76

MUKTA LAL NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 19, 2025
Mukta Lal Nath Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam appears for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has been serving in the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) as a Constable (Operator) since 18/3/1987, following his selection through the recruitment process conducted by the organization. While posted at Silchar, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner regarding a loan he had taken from an individual. As a result, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Communication) in Silchar. The enquiry report was submitted on 9/4/2009, and based on this report, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide D.O. No. 502 dtd. 30/6/2009. According to the charges outlined in the show cause notice, it was alleged that while the petitioner was serving at the Silchar Zone, he had collected a total of Rs.32,20,520.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty) from 23 (Twenty Three) different police personnel. However, he had failed to return Rs.23,57,660.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty).

(3.) Pursuant to the show cause notice issued, the petitioner submitted his reply and participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted on 19/11/2010, wherein the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was not liable for any of the charges against him. However, the disciplinary authority later issued another notice dt. 23/7/2012, informing the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had agreed with the findings of the departmental proceedings and had decided to impose a penalty. The penalty sought to be imposed was " withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect." In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. Finally, by order dtd. 19/9/2012, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding the petitioner's increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect.