Back
2003 Supreme(Gau) 604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Amrit Dewan
Vs.
Assam State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited and Ors.
WP(C) No. 5715 of 1999
Decided On: 23.12.2003
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D.C. Mahanta, T.J. Mahanta and P. Bhattacharya, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.K. Choudhury and M. Dutta, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer must be based on evidence and not be perverse. Non-furnishing of certain documents and witnesses did not prejudice the defense of the petitioner, but the findings must be supported by evidence.
Headnote:
Suspension - Assistant Manager - Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 9 - No prejudice caused by non-furnishing of list of documents and witnesses - No prejudice caused by non-production of four documents for inspection - Findings recorded by Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on no evidence - Impugned order of removal set aside - Petitioner not entitled to back wages except subsistence allowance - Period under suspension treated as on duty for all other purposes
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager at Assam State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited, was suspended and faced charges of causing shortage of goods in the godown during his incumbency. The disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner guilty, leading to his removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-furnishing of the list of documents and witnesses did not prejudice the petitioner's defense. It also held that the non-production of four documents for inspection did not cause any prejudice. However, the court concluded that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and based on no evidence, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order of removal. The petitioner was not entitled to back wages except subsistence allowance, and the period under suspension was treated as on duty for all other purposes.
Issues: The court framed the following issues for adjudication: (a) Whether the non-furnishing of the list of documents and witnesses resulted in any prejudice to the defense of the petitioner? (b) Whether the non-furnishing of the four documents inspection of which was sought for by the petitioner resulted in any prejudice to the defense of the petitioner? (c) Whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on no evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-furnishing of the list of documents and witnesses did not prejudice the petitioner's defense. It also concluded that the non-production of four documents for inspection did not cause any prejudice. However, the court found that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and based on no evidence, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order of removal. The petitioner was not entitled to back wages except subsistence allowance, and the period under suspension was treated as on duty for all other purposes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated, setting aside the impugned order of removal and ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages except subsistence allowance. The period under suspension was treated as on duty for all other purposes.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The writ Petitioner while was serving as Assistant Manager in Assam State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited (STATEFED) and was posted at. Jorhat Branch, was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.10.1994. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 25.10.1994 asking him to submit his written statement of defence in respect, of two charges levelled against him as indicated in the said show cause notice. Two charges levelled against the Petitioner were in respect of his incumbency as Assistant Manager, in-charge of the STATEFED Main godown at Jorhat during the year 1989-90 and 1990-91. By both the charges it was alleged that goods (dietary articles) worth Rs. 41,631.20 for the year 1989-1990 and goods (dietary articles) for the year 1990-1991 worth Rs. 3,27,120.45 were found short and thereby the STATEFED suffered loss.
2. The Petitioner by his letter dated 4.11.1994 asked for certain documents for his inspection in order to submit his written statement. The STATEFED authority by its latter dated 10.11.1994 directed the Branch Manager, STATEFED, Jorhat Branch to allow the Petitioner for inspection of documents as desired by him. This was followed by letter dated 10.12.1994 by which the Petitioner asked for four documents for his inspection. This was replied to by the Joint Manager (Legal and Con), Guwahati by his letter dated 1.3.1996 intimating the Petitioner that the documents sought for inspection by him were not relevant. However, the Petitioner once again asked for inspection of the four documents namely (i) Godown receipt book (page No. 9701 to 9800) (ii) Correspondence file (godown) for the year 1989-1990 (iii) Stock book of godown for the year 1990-91 and (iv) Correspondence file (godown) for the year 1990-91. The Joint Manager (Legal and Con) once again intimated the Petitioner by his letter dated 23.3.1996 that as per the information furnished by the Branch Manager, STATEFED, Jorhat, the Petitioner had already inspected the documents to his full satisfaction. However, by the said letter the Petitioner was asked to indicate as to what were the documents he had already inspected. The Petitioner reiterating his earlier stand, once again wrote to the Joint Manager (Legal and Con) by his letter dated 8.4.1996 of the Petitioner, the Joint Manager in-charge STATEFED) asked Joint Manager (Legal) STATEFED, Guwahati intimating the fixation of date as 26.4.1996 for re-inspection of documents by the Petitioner subject to his approval. Nothing is revealed as to what transpired thereafter. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was not given access to those four documents which seriously prejudiced his defence.
3. The Petitioner submitted his reply to his show cause notice on 2.5.1996 denying both the charges. In his elaborate written statement of defence, the Petitioner indicated as to how he was not responsible for the shortage of the goods in the godown in question. In the said written statement, the Petitioner, inter alia, took the plea of his absence for a particular period when he was sent for a training, the damaged condition of the articles and the dilapidated condition of the godown in question and the sale of certain damaged dietary articles as the cause of shortage. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the Petitioner, conducted a departmental enquiry in which as many as six witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. The Petitioner also made his statement of defence on 4.12.1996 reiterating the stand taken in the written statement of defence.
4. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty of both the charges. The report was submitted on 19.6.1997 which was forwarded to the Petitioner by letter dated 5.8.1997 asking him to submit his written representation, if any, against the enquiry report. In the said letter dated 5.8.1997, the proposal to inflict the pun
