Sahil Rahman vs State of Assam and Others

Ranjan Gogol, J.—Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel assisted by Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

The writ petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time a Junior Engineer attached to the Executive Engineer, Dibrugarh Division of P. H.E. Department of the State, was put under suspension by an order dated 5.6.1995. Thereafter, a memorandum of charge dated 31.8.1995 containing four different charges was served upon the petitioner asking the petitioner to submit his reply to the said charges. It may be noticed herein that the first charge levelled against the petitioner is that while functioning as a Sectional Officer in charge of store section of the Dibrugarh (P.H.E. Division) the petitioner illegally sent out departmental store materials from the store. The other throe charges pertain to the alleged misconduct and misbehaviour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner showed cause and thereafter, nothing appears to have been finalised until 29.6.1998 when another memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner repeating the earlier four charges contained in the charge memo dated 30.9.1995. A 5th charge alleging discrepancy of departmental materials to the extent of Rs. 4,56,048/-was levelled against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner once again showed cause against the aforesaid memorandum dated 29.6.1998 and the authority thereafter by an order dated 6.3.1999 revoked the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 5.6.1995, reinstated him in service and gave him a fresh posting in the Dhemaji Division. By the aforesaid order revoking the suspension of the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 4,20,679/- being the amount allegedly involved in the discrepancy of materials was ordered to be recovered from the monthly salary of the petitioner in instalments. Aggrieved, the instant writ application has been filed.

The arguments and counter arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties really give rise to a short and simple question as to whether the departmental proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner had been finalised by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges of alleged discrepancy of store materials so as to justify the recovery proposed in the order dated 6.3.1999.

I have been taken through the affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the respondents as well as voluminous records produced in original by the learned counsel for the respondents. Repeated queries made by the Court as to whether the petitioner has been found guilty of the relevant charge in the departmental proceeding have not been answered satisfactorily and on perusal of the affidavit as well as the records produced I do not find anything to indicate that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been finalised as yet. If the departmental proceedings have not been finalised and the culpability of the writ petitioner in respect of the charge of discrepancy in store materials has not been determined by the disciplinary authority, this Court fails to see how the order of recovery as proposed in the order dated 6.3.1999 can be sustained. The recovery proposed by the aforesaid order, in the absence of any conclusive determination of the guilt of the writ petitioner would be wholly unauthorised in law. Consequently, this Court interferes with the order dated 6.3.1999 in so far as the recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,20,679 is concerned. The respondent authority will be at liberty to complete the departmental proceeding and thereafter, pass such consequential orders as the final conclusions in the said proceedings would permit.

The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.