RAZWAUR AHMED CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an Upper Division Assistant in the technical cell of the directorate of Panchayat and Rural development, Government of Assam by the present writ petition has challenged the disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.7.2003 inflicting the penalty of removal from service pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.

(2.) The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of this case is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was serving as Upper Division Assistant by issuing charge memo dated 28.1.2002 levelling the charges of misguiding superior officer with malafide intention, deliberate suppression of official documents gross negligence of official duties, dishonesty and irresponsible behaviour which is unbecoming of a government servant and which has led to huge excess expenditure of government funds, on the allegation that though the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee No. 3 held on 20.12,96 revising the purchase rates of G.C.I. Sheets under the APSP Act 1989 and lowering the earlier rate, was officially available with him on 7,3.97, he misguided his superior officer by giving wrong information that the copy of the minutes has become available in this Directorate only on 23,3.98 while he were not serving in the technical branch and that he did not take necessary steps for forwarding the copy of the minutes to the District Rural Development Agencies immediately to avoid wasteful expenditure of Govt. funds after the same became officially available to him during the month of March, 1997 and attempted to hide his responsibility and tried to shift it to other employees, though in the note put up on 7.3.97 in the newly opened file he acknowledge the receipt of the copy of the minutes mentioning the memo No. DI (II)/ 37/92/435/1603 dated 18.2.97, he erased the writing with white fluid and substituted the same with the memo No. GOC-10/95/ 96/157/316-26 dated 18.10.96, which is a copy of the minutes of the earlier technical committee meeting held on 8.10.96, Before issuance of charge memo the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 25.1,2002. The petitioner on receipt of the charge memo submitted his show cause reply on 93,2002 stating inter alia that the then Joint Director (technical) namely Sri Ratneswar Deka, who was a member of the technical committee, after obtaining his own copy of the proceeding of the technical committee, meeting dated 20,12.96 handed over the same to him to putup in a separate file as the official copy was yet to be received and accordingly on the basis of such verbal instruction of Shri Deka, he opened the new file and same was docketed for placement before the said Joint Director (technical) for further necessary action, however, as the official copy was yet to be received he did not officially assigned/marked to take up the follow up action and therefore he had to delete the number already putup for forwarding the subsequent rates. It was further contended in the said written statement that because of the verbal instruction and order of the then Joint Director he was debarred from in processing the file, which he did so particularly as because copy of the proceeding was not formally endorsed or marked to him and for that reason the earlier note along with the memo number was erased with while fluid and thereafter the other official correspondences were put up and processed. The petitioner also denied that the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee held on 20.12.96 was officially received by him on 7.3.97. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner decided to proceed with the inquiry and accordingly the inquiry officer was appointed. In the said inquiry a number of witnesses were examined, where in the reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 29.11.2002 by holding that the Charge No. 1 and 2 framed against the charged officer i.e. petitioner are proved on the basis of the admissions made by him and also on the basis of material evidence on record. The order of penalty dated 24.1.2003 was passed thereafter by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service, which came to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1023 of 2003 basically on the ground of non-furnishing the inquiry report to him before imposing the penalty thereby denying him to give the: opportunity to make representation against the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. This court vide order dated 27.2.2003 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of removal from service dated 24.1.2003 on the ground of non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report and further directing the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the said inquiry report and to allow the petitioner to submit his reply and thereafter directing the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order after consideration of such reply. The learned Single Judge by the said order also directed the re-instatement of the petitioner in service. Accordingly vide order dated 12.3.2003 the petitioner was reinstated in service and on 24.3.2003 a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was furnished to him. The petitioner on receipt of the same submitted his representation against the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on 22.4.2003. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated 18.7.2003 inflicted the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 20.10.2005 by the Commissioner and Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development department.

(3.) I have heard Mr. H. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Though on the first date of hearing i.e. 23.5.2006, Mr. P. K. Mushahari, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate was present and express his inability to argue the case on that date, this court after hearing of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fixed the case on 25.5.2006 for hearing of the argument of the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, but unfortunately on that date i.e. on 25.5.2006 none appeared on behalf of the respondents to argue the case and hence after closing hearing, the judgment was kept reserved.