The main legal point established is that the court found no violation of natural justice in conducting the departmental enquiry and refused the prayer for subsistence allowance due to the petitioner's failure to meet the requirements.

Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair along with Mr. A. Chetri, learned counsel representing the Gauhati High Court. The petitioner, an ex-employee (Record Arranger) of this Court, filed the writ petitions claiming subsistence allowance for the period of suspension (10/12/1993 to 02/04/1996) and to set aside and quash the order dated 02/04/1996 by which he was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. While in WP (C) No. 2145/199, the petitioner has put to challenge the order of dismissal, in WP (C) No. 1622/2000 he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance for the period from 10/12/1993 to 02/04/1996 during which he was placed under suspension pending drawal of the departmental proceeding and also in view of his involvement in the related criminal case.

2. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it is an admitted position that the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of his involvement in a criminal proceeding and also pending drawal of departmental proceeding, he was entitled to receive subsistence allowance. He further submits that as there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner as he was not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard, the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in law.

3. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Standing Counsel representing the Gauhati High Court countering the above argument, submits that as the facts well speak for itself, the petitioner was found to be involved in defalcation of huge Govt. money, as a consequence of which he was arrested by the Police and presently criminal proceedings are pending against him. He further submits that departmental proceedings was also initiated against the petitioner in which it was clearly established that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him and considering the gravity of the misconduct, the disciplinary authority thought it prudent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. He also submits that the petitioner was provided with all reasonable opportunities of being heard and thus the allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice is absurd and untenable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. The petitioner while was serving as Record Arranger of this Court was placed under suspension by order dated 10/12/1993 pending drawal of departmental proceeding. He was found involved in defalcation of huge amount of Govt. money and accordingly criminal proceedings was also initiated against him. In the departmental proceeding, the following charges were levelled against him vide Charge Sheet dated 7/12/1994.

1. That you have been working as Record arranger attached to the Accounts Section of the principal Seat of Gauhati High Court at Guwahati since 29.9.82 till 10.12.93 (Date of your suspension from service). During the period from 9.7.90 to 12.11.93, you were entrusted with 214 (two hundred fourteen) T.A. Bills, Medical Bills etc amounting to Rs. 10,90,683/- (Rupees Ten lakhs ninety thousand Six hundred eighty three) only for encashment from the Treasury. While encashing the aforesaid bills you had inflated the amount of money in each of the aforesaid 214 (two hundred and fourteen) bills by inserting, overwriting and erasing the figures and letters in each of the aforesaid 214 bills and thereby drawn total excess amount of money to the tune of Rs. 21,43,526/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs forty three thousand five hundred and twenty six) only which is more than the total specified amount of money namely Rs. 10,90,683/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety thousand six hundred eighty three) only in the aforesaid 214 bills. Thus, you had caused wrongful loss to the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 2