Point of Law : There can hardly be any doubt that no person can be allowed to misappropriate money belonging to any institution be it public or private. To punish such a person, the law would require that allegation of such charges be established in accordance with law. Such proceeding should be done by following due process of law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, and Mr. A. Boro, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

1. The petitioner is a retired employee who retired on 31.10.2003 as Junior Engineer, PWD, Assam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the departmental proceeding initiated against him and the subsequent imposition of penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.20,19,807/-.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was a Junior Engineer (Civil) and holding the charge of Central Store, under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rehabari and discharged his duty in the said capacity from 01.06.1987 to 11.10.1991.

3. On 11.10.1991, while petitioner was transferred out of the said charge, the petitioner handed over his charge to the next incumbent and there was a stock discrepancy of Rs. 2,19,671/-which is discernible from the form ‘C’ under the Assam PWD Code (Annexure –C).

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after 1 year 6 months of his handing over charge as Store In-charge on 11.10.1991, a show cause notice was issued by the Executive Engineer for alleged shortage of store material and resultant misappropriation.

5. According to the petitioner, vide his letter dated 07.05.1993, the petitioner refuted the contents of the allegation as made in the show cause notice and prayed for his exoneration.

6. According to the petitioner, the matter thus rested for 6 years and on 15.07.1999, the charge sheet was filed with statement of allegation and list of documents. The petitioner once again replied to such charge sheet contending that the verification of store materials were done after handing over the charge by him, in his absence and behind his back.

7. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, regular enquiry was conducted and petitioner also participated in the said enquiry.

8. Thereafter, on 23.07.2002, the order of recovery of Rs. 20,19,807/-was passed and was directed to be recovered from the salary and pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF etc of the petitioner, as the petitioner was to retire in the year 2003.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a regular Departmental appeal, under the provisions of Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred as Rule 1964), before the Appellate Authority. While nothing was done and such appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this court by way of WP(C)3649/2004 challenging the order of recovery as well as praying for a direction for release of his pension and pensionary benefits as the same was withheld for the reason of pendency of the Appeal.

10. This court, vide order dated 28.05.2004, disposed of the said writ petition and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal and also, directed that the authority will consider for payment of provisional pension and release of provident fund due to the petitioner.

11. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.03.2005, the Appellate Authority passed in pending appeal preferred by the petitioner, directed for re-enquiry and also directed for release of provisional pension of the petitioner.

12. According to the petitioner, after 7 years of the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, another Enquiry Officer was appointed, by order dated 10.11.2012 to conduct a re-enquiry. According to the petitioner, subsequent to such fresh appointment of the Enquiry Officer, nothing proceeded. Thereafter, suddenly on 18.03.2013, once again the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,19,807/- was directed. The petitioner contends that no procedure established by law as well as provided in the Assam Services Rule, 1964 was followed. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no fresh notice of the re-enquiry was issued. Neither any witnesses were called for, nor any formal enquiry was held, prior to imposition of the penalty da