The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in the issuance of charge sheets, biasness, malafide, and misuse of power by the respondent Corporation, and the hasty conclusion of the enquiry proceedings reflected biasness, malafide, and misuse of power by the respondent Corporation.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. By this writ application, the petitioner who was placed under suspension pending drawl of departmental proceeding way back in 1990 has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court assailing the legality and validity of the two departmental proceedings initiated against him.

2. Shortly stated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner while was serving as senior Assistant under the respondent corporation was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.9.1990 pending drawl of departmental proceeding. This was followed by issuance of a charge sheet dated 23.5.1991 bringing altogether three charges against the petitioner. Meanwhile a criminal proceeding was launched against the petitioner on the same set of charges. The petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 3304/1991 making two fold prayers viz. to say that departmental proceeding till completion of the criminal proceeding and to quash the order of suspension dated 25.9.1990. This court by its judgment and order dated 6.5.1995 allowed the first prayer but the second prayer for revocation of the order of suspension was rejected with the observation that the petitioner would be entitled to approach the court for appropriate direction if the criminal case was not disposed of expeditiously. The respondents were also directed to expedite the criminal trial. Recording the submission relating to non-payment of subsistence allowance, it was provided that such allowance should be sent to the petitioner at his home address by the end of each month positively.

3. The finding and conclusion of this court relating to the first prayer for stay of the departmental proceeding during pendency of criminal proceeding are quoted below which will have a bearing in this case. Referring to the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding in reference to the criminal proceeding launched against the petitioner, the court observed -

"The admitted position is that the criminal proceeding is pending. The criminal proceeding and the charges in the departmental proceeding are on the same set of facts.........."

Referring to various decisions of the Apex Court the court observed -

"This being the position and as I find that the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are based on same set of facts, I direct that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner shall stand suspended till the completion of the criminal case."

4. The criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner came to an end with the judgment and order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in G.R. Case No. 4228/90 under Section 409 IPC. While acquitting the petitioner from the charge of misappropriating corporation's money for which he was charged under Section 409 IPC, the court observed as follows :

"The prosecution has not exhibited the vouchers which are very important document to prove the case. No reason has been shown. In the absence of vouchers, it is difficult to say that the amount shown in cash book deferred from the amounts shown in the voucher."

There were initial of the MD against the relevant entries in the cash books. But no where it has been observed that defect was found.

The accused has denied the allegation in his statement recorded Under Section 313 Cr.PC.

PW-1 has admitted that the cash books were in the custody of office for 7/8 says (sic) before audit. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the cash books were not in the custody of the accused during this period."

5. After the aforesaid judgment in the criminal case acquitting the petitioner, nothing happened till 31.5.2002 when the petitioner was served with yet another charge sheet pertaining to the same charges as were levelled against him by the earlier charge sheet dated 23.5.1991 referred to above. It is not in dispute, rather fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing fo