JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the charge sheet bearing No. FEB.17/2005/9 dated 31/3/2006, the enquiry report dated 6/7/2010 issued vide letter No.FEB/17/2005/Pt/46 dated 22/1/2013 and the penalty order No. FEB.17/2005/Pt./56 dated 4/4/2013 as well the Notification No.FEB.17/2005/Pt./62 dated 22/7/2014 and for a further direction upon the respondents to release the death-cum-retirement-gratuity of the petitioner, full pensionery benefits, monthly pension including arrear monthly pension.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioner while working as the Assistant Director of Audit, Assam, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him vide an Office Memorandum bearing No. FEB.17/2005/9, dated 31/3/2006 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964(for short ‘the Rules of 1964’) read with Article 311 of the Constitution. The said show cause notice issued on 31/3/2006 has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The charges levelled against the petitioner as could be found out from the said show cause notice are that the petitioner had shown approval of the Government dated 31/12/2002 for appointment of 5 candidates from the select list of the selection board. It was alleged that the petitioner had misled and suggested for appointment directly, though the said approval of the Government was for promotion from the rank of UD Assistant to the rank of Assistant Audit Officer. The second charge was that in the said endorsement, the petitioner had mentioned of a proposal note to the Government for approval of 5 posts which had no base. The third charge was that the petitioner had mentioned the grounds as “at the duress of the candidates/guardians/the associates giving over pressure creating uncontrollable situation with mental torture and imbalance”, which was baseless and having no record. It further transpires from the said show cause notice that the petitioner was further charged with the allegation that he had prepared a list in a pick and choose manner without taking into consideration the serial number in the select list and thereby violated the Government order with mala fide intention and misleading proposal placing the Government in an embarrassing position and causing loss to the State exchequer. It was further mentioned that all the 23 candidates, whose names have been mentioned in the show cause notice, were picked up from the select list by the petitioner against non-existent post as a result of which the Government had to bear the financial burden of 31.72 lakhs and as such the petitioner was charged with the violation of the Government procedure causing unauthorized burden and loss to the Government exchequer.

4. Vide the said show cause notice the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication, provided he did not intend to inspect the documents which have relevance with the issue under the enquiry. It was further provided that in case the petitioner intended to inspect the documents, the petitioner has to write to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, that he intended to inspect the documents within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said communication and submit the explanation within 10 days thereafter. It was further provided that if the petitioner desired to be heard in person, he should specify the same to the issuing authority. Further, the petitioner was also allowed to engage a Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority. However, it is relevant to take note that in the said show cause notice, there was no mention of any documents to be relied upon except in the list of witness, it was specified that it would be the Director, Au