TARUN CHANDRA BHATTACHARYYA Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner started his service career as an Assistant Engineer with the respondent Board in the year 1959. By 1981, he climbed the ladder right upto the post of Additional Chief Engineer. The petitioner was appointed as Project Manager of Karbi Longpi Hydro Electric Project on 5,7,80 and continued till 16.6.86. It was during this period that certain gross irregularities in the matter of payments to a contractor came to light. On 1.9.86, an FIR u/s 409, 1208 IPC read with Section 5 (1) (C), (D), punishable u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was lodged against him with the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 4.9.86, Annexure-1, pending departmental inquiry, into the charges of having given undue monetary benefit to one Contractor M/s. Sibson Construction Company, defrauding the Board by abusing his official position, having caused payment of Rs. 1540658.62 without proper verification and in face of objections from subordinate officers.

(2.) The charges levelled against him reads as follows : (1) Dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board under Regulation 10 (b). Under the charge: the payment of 75% of the claims has been questioned. (2) Fraud in connection with the business of the Board under Regulation 10 (c). The set of facts on which this charge is grounded are those stated in charge - 1 (3) Causing wilful loss to Board's property, under Regulation 10 (c) with the same set of facts as in Charge-1 (4) Moral turpitude on the basis of the facts given in charge-1 The charge of moral turpitude is derived."

(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply, denying the above charges The inquiry proceed,; By order (tit. 19.7.88 his suspension was revoked and the petitioner was allowed to resume duty without prejudice to the ongoing departmental inquiry. In the meanwhile, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry reports but the respondent Board being not satisfied with the report ordered the inquiry to proceed de novo vide resolution dated 29.9.88,