AB MAJID NAIKU Vs. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has brought this writ petition with the following averments: - That he was working as a Research Assistant in the Agriculture Department posted at Khudwani Rice Research Main Station in the year 1967 and is at present working as an agriculture instructor High School Bijbehara. On 25 -11 -1967 respondent No. 1 passed an order whereby the petitioner was suspended and asked to show cause why drastic action should not be taken against him (vide Annexure A). The petitioner was served with yet another communication from respondent No. 3 dated 27 -11 -1967 (vide annexure B) and asked to submit his explanation within a couple of days. That explanation was duly submitted. But before the same could be considered and disposed of, yet another communication was addressed to him by the respondent No. 3 (vide annexure C) calling for explanation for some allegedly irregularities in stocks. Explanation to this was also submitted. Respondent No. 2 (vide No. 1125 -26 dated 7 -5 -68) passed an order (vide annexure D) issuing another show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service. Reply to this communication was also submitted. Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 19 -6 -68 (Annexure E) whereby the petitioner was punished. Thereupon, a revision petition was filed before respondent No. 2 which has been rejected without assigning any reason (vide Annexure F). The petitioner has further averred that the order against which revision was filed is illegal and has been passed without complying with the statutory rules governing disciplinary action against the Government Servants. The petitioner never knew what enquiry was held and by whom. The orders (Annexures E & F) being illegal and having been passed arbitrarily, it is prayed that these orders be set aside and the petitioner relieved of the punishment imposed on him. The petition is supported by an affidavit. Alongwith the petition the petitioner has filed copy relating to the note on inspection of Khudwani Rice Research Main Station made by the Director of Agriculture on 23rd of November 1987 (Annexure A), Explanation for alleged pilferage of paddy (Annexure B), notice from the Rice Specialist (Annexure C), notice from Director of Agriculture to the petitioner (Annexure D): copy of the impugned order (Annexure E), copy of the order passed on revision, Copy of the revision petition, (Annexure F).

(2.) ABDUL Rashid Hamdani Rice Specialist has sworn in a reply affidavit in which he has averred that he was posted as Rice Specialist and Khudwani farm was in his charge and under his control. The petitioner was the Research Assistant in the Agriculture Farm on the Rice Research Station and was working under the deponent. The petitioner was posted at Khudwani and according to the Rules was supposed to stay there, all the time. He could neither leave the station nor absent himself from duty without previous permission of the competent authority and without obtaining sanction from the competent officer. The Director of Agriculture directed the deponent to hold an enquiry with respect to suspected pilferages reported in the above said farm. The deponent went on spot for enquiry with respect to the allegations against the petitioner and some other employees of the Farm. The inventory of actual stock position in charge of the petitioner was got checked in presence of the petitioner and the said list bears his signature and those of the officers who assisted in preparation thereof. Shortages or excesses found on spot were also mentioned therein. With regard to the position of paddy stock the list was made and submitted earlier by the petitioner as per routine and in accordance with the entries made in the Register form No. 18. Physical verification of the position of the stocks regarding paddy was taken by making weighments on spot. Excesses found there were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and other employees present during the check and weighment. The records mentioned above and the statements made therein as prepared on the dates are correct. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to submit his explanation and to represent his case. After thorough enquiry on spot report was submitted to the Director Agriculture under whose direction the enquiry was conducted. Also on the record is the reply affidavit filed by Director of Agriculture Shri H. S. Mann. In his detailed document the deponent has sworn on oath that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to make representation in respect to the allegations made against him and all the allegations that were made against the petitioner were based on the statement of facts, and the charges were substantiated by his own statement and signed by him in token of their correctness. There has been no violation of any statutory rules in the enquiry with respect to the matter. The items of charges with respect to shortages of articles of stores, excesses in store articles and the absence from duty of the petitioner were within the knowledge of the depondent. Enquiry was also conducted on spot and the petitioner attended this enquiry during the period of his suspension. The Director further deposed that he partly on the basis of his personal knowledge and partly on the report of the Rice Specialist who was deputed for conducting enquiry under his orders, and after examining the record and after examining the explanations tendered by the petitioner from time to time issued the final show cause notice for punishment. The order was passed after the respondent No. 1 was satisfied about the correctness of the same and after he has examined and considered the explanation offered by the petitioner which was found neither convincing nor correct. Also it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has failed to avail of the remedy by way of appeal provided under rules. The petitioner is guilty of laches. The impugned order was passed on 19 -9 -68 and the present petition was preferred on 5 -5 -71 i.e. after three years of the passing of the impugned order. The Director of Agriculture has also appended alongwith the affidavit annexures 1 to 3 which are by way of report of the rice specialist addressed to him, copies of list of stocks articles, and statement showing paddy, maize, barley, turnip reddish, paddy grass etc. lying in the store of Rice Research Scheme Kudhwani and receipts and issues for the months of October 1967 of Rice Research Station Khudwani.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.