SEIKH AZAD ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.7.1994 of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service and has prayed for a direction on the respondents to reinstate him in service with full consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts briefly are that while the petitioner was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in Dhemaji T&T Sub-Division under the Assam State Electricity Board (For short the 'ASEB'). he received an order dated 22.9.1993 of the Chairman of the ASEB asking him to show cause under Regulation 10 of the ASEB (General Service) Regulations, 1960 as to why he should not be penalised if the charges mentioned in the said order are established against him. Along with the said order dated 22.9.1993, a statement of allegations on which the charges were based was also enclosed. According to the said statement of allegations, on 26.7.1993 the petitioner had issued under Challan No. 46160 5.9 KM of Panther Conductor to the Assistant Executive Engineer, T&T Sub-Division, Guwahati and the said Conductor was allowed to be carried by a private truck No. AS-14- 0595 and there was no approval of the higher authority for such issue of inter-divisional indent and for transport of the materials of the ASEB in a private truck. The said truck was seized by the police on 27.7.1993 and the petitioner was asked to furnish details regarding issue of the Conductor by him with all relevant records, but the petitioner failed to produce the same by 28.7.1993. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of allegations, the three charges framed against the petitioner were that he committed fraud or/and dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board or its property, he committed breach of law applicable to the ASEB and he committed breach of ASEB Officers' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. By the said order dated 22.9.1993 the petitioner was asked to submit written statement in his defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement of his defence to the Chairman of the ASEB under Ms letter dated 15.10.1993. But the said defence of the petitioner was not accepted. An inquiry was held and inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer Sri P.L. Bhuyam holding the petitioner guilty of all the aforesaid charges. The Chairman of the ASEB then issued a show cause notice dated 11.7.1994 to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service: should not be inflicted upon him and along with the said show cause notice, a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report together with the record of evidence were sent to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause, but by the impugned order dated 25.7.1994 the Chairman of the ASEB dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Against the said impugned order dated 25.7.1994 the petitioner filed an appeal petition'dated 12.8.1994 but on 14.10,1994 the Board adopted resolution to the effect that punishment inflicted on the petitioner was appropriate considering the gravity of the offence. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief.

(3.) Mr G.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's defence against the charges was that on 26.7.11993 he was informed at his rented house at North Lakhimpur that one truck had come from Guwahati Trans-Sub-division for emergency maintenance work and he left for Dhernaji by bus, but when he got down at Gogamukh due to the restriction on movement of heavy vehicles he saw the Private truck No. AS-14-0595 waiting there and cone person showed indent which was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Trans-Sub-division, Guwahati. When he refused to accept the indent and go to Dhemaji some people threatened Mm to kill him and harm his wife at Lakhimpur and considering safety and security of his family he was compelled to go to Dhemaji and issue the Conductor and allow the materials to be loaded in the truck. Mr Bhattacharjee further submitted that in support of this defence the petitioner also led evidence of three witnesses Sri Miblu Hazarika, Sri Manoj Borah and Sri Krishna Dutta. He also pointed out that the Executive Engineer, North Lakhimpur T&T Division in his evidence before the Inquiry Officer has admitted that the petitioner had informed him in his residence after 6&7 days of the incident that great pressure was put on him to issue the conductor. But the aforesaid defence and the evidence adduced by the petitioner have been totally ignored both by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. According to Mr Bhattacharjee, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authori y have not taken into consideration relevan factors namely the aforesaid defence and evidence in support of the defense while recording their respective findings of guilt against the petitioner and, therefore, their findings of guilt against the petitioner are liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another-Vs-G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 in which the Supreme Court following the Wednesbury case held that while examining 'reasonableness' of an administrative decision, the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out the relevant factors.