IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
B.K. Sharma, J.
Lolit Rajkonwar – Appellants
Vs.
Oil India Limited, The Deputy General Manager (PS) & Group General Manager (SS) – Respondent
WP(C) 6047 of 2004
Decided On: 10.05.2013
OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982 - Rule 25 - Departmental proceeding - Enquiry report - Causing loss to Oil India Ltd - Misconduct – Dismissal from service - Petitioner while was serving as Sr. Land Officer was served with the memorandum of charge Sheet proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 25 of Rules, 1982 - Charge against the petitioner was that of causing loss to Oil India Ltd. to tune of Rs. 4,26,973.15 through payment of Surface Compensation to 9(nine) fictitious persons against drilling Location (MTC) - Held, It is for the disciplinary authority to decide as to what penalty would meet the ends of justice - It is in this context, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in case of misappropriation of public money, the penalty of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate - This Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its opinion with the disciplinary authority in respect of imposition of penalty, while not interfering with impugned orders, granting liberty to the respondents to re-consider matter regarding imposition of penalty and as to whether any other penalty including the penalty of compulsory retirement would meet ends of justice – Writ petition disposed of.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-G and I orders dated 8.5.2003 and 11.5.2004. By the first order, the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. By the second order, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed. Challenging the entire departmental proceeding including the enquiry report thereof and the said two orders, it is the case of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner while was serving as Sr. Land Officer was served with the memorandum of charge Sheet dated 15.1.2001 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 25 of the OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982. Along with the memorandum of charge sheet, the statement of Articles of charge and the statement of Imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge had also been furnished. The lists of documents and witnesses had also been furnished.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that of causing loss to Oil India Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4,26,973.15 through payment of Surface Compensation to 9(nine) fictitious persons against drilling Location (MTC). It was alleged that the petitioner thereby committed misconduct under Clause 5.1, 5.5, 5.17 and 5.21 of Rule 5 of OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982. For a ready reference, the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Article of Charge is reproduced below:-
Oil India Limited (OIL) took over an area of land measuring 31B-3K-11L, for drilling purpose at location MTC" near Margherita in the year 1991. An amount of Rs. 7,47,734/- was paid as surface compensation to 20 pattadars/occupiers of the land and an amount of Rs. 14,11,660/- was paid to the pattadars as land value for 23B-2K-13L of land. The remaining 8B-0K-18L of land was Government land.
2.0 It is alleged that Shri Lolit Rajknowar while performing his duties as Sr. Land Officer, Land Department, Duliajan during 1991 failed to maintain absolute integrity, honesty and devotion to duty in the context of the following.
(i) It is alleged that Shri Lolit Rajkonwar, while posted and functioning as Sr. Land Officer, Land Department, OIL, Duliajan during 1991, was incharge of acquisition of land for location "MTC."
(ii) It is alleged that Shri Lolit Rajkonwar, Sr. Land Officer along with Shri RN Baruah, Land Clerk and Shri PK Sharma, Accounts Clerk prepared enumeration lists in the Name of the following nine (09) fictitious persons of Village Kumchai Kong as occupiers of Dag Nos. 59, 34, 27, 24, 44, 60, 28, 43 & 214.
(1) Shri Robin Sonowal
(2) Shri Durllav Gohain
(3) Shri Gojen Sonowal
(4) Shri Mohendra Sonowal
(5) Shri Modan Gohain
(6) Shri Chitra Gohain
(7) Shri Bholok Gohain
(8) Shri Padmeswar Gohain
(9) Shri Nanda Sonowal
(iii) It is alleged that an investigation it has been found that the above named 9 persons do not live in village Kumchai Kong or nearby village nor they ever lived in village Kumchai Kong. The investigation also reveals that as confirmed by the concerned Pattadars the above named nine persons were not occupiers of Dag Nos. 59, 34, 27, 24 and 60. These 9 persons were not occupiers of the "Sarkari" land also covered by Dag Nos. 43, 28 and 214 as per the Government Revenue records. But these nine persons were shown as occupiers of land covered by Dag Nos. 59, 34, 27, 24, 60, 43, 28 and 214 in the enumeration lists prepared by Shri Lolit Rajkonwar along with Shri R.N. Baruah and Shri PK Brahma.
(iv) It is alleged that the seal and the L.T.I. of the Gaon Bura of village Kumchai Kong put on the enumeration lists of the above named 9 persons as identifier are fake as confirmed by the said Gaon Bura of village Kumchai Kong.
(v) It is alleged that based on the enumeration lists prepared in the names of the above named 9 (nine) fictitious persons an amount of Rs. 4,26,973.15 was paid as detailed below being surfac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.