P.P. Naolekar, C.J.—

Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. None appears for the respondent Assam Seed Corporation Limited.

2. The appellant petitioner was appointed as a Junior Accountant in the year 1987 in the Assam Seed Corporation Ltd. On 1.9.93 the Managing Director of the Corporation issued a charge sheet under Rule 9 of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964(for short "the Rules, 1964") for alleged misappropriation of money and negligence of duties etc. while working as a Junior Accountant in Rangia Sales Point during the period from 15.10.91 to 15.2.92. The amount stated to be misappropriated was approximately Rs. 78,2447- and odd. The appellant petitioner was served with the charge sheet with the list of documents and also the list of witnesses. On 4.9.93 the appellant petitioner filed an application seeking inspection of the documents which have been shown in the list of documents supplied alongwith the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer was appointed 16.10.93. On 4.11.94 the appellant petitioner again applied for inspection of the documents as he was not given inspection of the documents before that date. On 9.11.94 the appellant petitioner was placed under suspension which was later on revoked under the orders of the High Court wherein it was further directed to complete the enquiry within three months. On 14.8.97 one Prasanta Kumar Hazarika was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the appellant petitioner was directed to be present before the Enquiry Officer in connection with the enquiry on 17.11.97 and 18.11.97. As the appellant petitioner was neither supplied with nor inspection was given to him of the documents he again moved a fresh application on 19.11.97 for allowing him inspection of the documents mentioned in the list of documents. On 30.6.99 the Managing Director of the Corporation directed the appellant petitioner to avail opportunity to verify the requisite documents as prayed for by him with 10 days and submit his written statement within 21 days thereafter for a decision of 50% pay recovery against 2,70,504.20. On 2.7.99 an application was moved by the appellant petitioner that he may be given inspection of the documents as communicated to him by order dated 30.6.99. On 13.7.99 the Managing Director of the Corporation directed the General Manager(Finance) to allow the appellant petitioner inspection of all the available documents wanted by him within 17.7.99 and the appellant petitioner was directed to submit reply within 31.7.99 after inspection of the documents. Again on 20.7.99 the Managing Director directed the Incharge, Rangia Sales Point to allow the appellant petitioner to inspect the documents for submitting reply to the charge sheet. On 22.7.99 the appellant petitioner was informed by the Incharge, Rangia Sales Point that the documents asked for are not available. On 6.8.99 the Managing Director directed the S.P. Chief Minister's Vigilance Cell, Christian Basti to allow the appellant petitioner to have the inspection of the documents for submission of his reply in the departmental proceedings. It appears that no inspection of the relevant documents have been given to the appellant till date. On 13.10.99 the impugned order was passed whereunder. It was directed to deduct 50% pay of the appellant petitioner from October'99 till the impugned misappropriated amount of Rs. 82,70,504.20 is recovered. By the same letter the appellant petitioner was directed to complete the inspection of the documents at Chief Minister's Vigilance Cell. The appellant petitioner again visited the Chief Minister's Vigilance Cell but the vigilance cell could not provide the relevant documents to the appellant petitioner and the appellant petitioner was forced to make another representation not to execute the order passed on 13; 10.99. As the recovery proceedings commenced against the appellant petitioner he challenged the order dated 13.10.99 by fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document