NRIPENDRA NATH MEDHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 03.08.2001 removing the petitioner from service is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was at the relevant point of time working as a Station Superintendent of the Assam State Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ASTC and was posted as the in Charge of the Dispur City Service. He was brought on transfer to the aforesaid post sometime in the month of February 2000. On 9.11.2000 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner levelling 3 charges against him and asking him to show cause. Reduced to its essentials, charge No. 1 was in respect of the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner in not realizing the waybill challans from the conductors of the City Service. As per the statement of allegations furnished along with the charge memo, the facts on which the aforesaid charge was levelled appears to be that the conductors of the City Service of the ASTC were not regularly depositing their challans along with the proceeds thereof after completion of necessary trips. Specifically, it was alleged that on 7.5.2000, out of 42 numbers of trips only 7 numbers of way bill challans were deposited and similarly on 8.5.2000 out of 50 trips undertaken, only 8 numbers of waybill challans were deposited. There being a difference between the proceeds of the challans deposited and the amounts unpaid, the petitioner as the Station Superintendent was alleged to have been negligent in not realizing the amounts due to the Corporation by ensuring the timely deposit of the challans. On the said facts, commission of breach of trust as well as gross misconduct by the petitioner was levelled as the siecond and third charge mentioned in the charge memo dated 9.11.2000.

(3.) On receipt of the charge memo along with the statement of allegations, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.11.2000. In his reply, the petitioner pointed out that he had joined in the Dispur Station on 14.2.2000 and at that time there were a huge number of under posited challans pending. According to the petitioner, after he had joined at the Dispur Station, he had informed the Divisional Superintendent verbally and also had reported in writing on 24.2.2000 indicating the names of the conductors who had not deposited the challans along with the challan numbers. The petitioner, in his reply had further stated that he had repeated the said process by submitting another report-dated 8.3.2000. The petitioner had further contended that on 12.3.2000 he had withdrawn 23 Nos. of conductors for irregular deposit of challans and that on 12.4.2000 when salary for the month of October 1999 was paid to the conductors, he had adjusted a large number of challans from the salaries of the defaulting conductors and the amounts realized by the process of adjustment had been created to the account of the ASTC. However, as the practice had continued even thereafter, the petitioner had filed a third report to the superior authority on 24.4.2000. Copies of the aforesaid reports submitted by the petitioner to the superior authorities were enclosed with his reply.