The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in assessing the penalty imposed, particularly the deprivation of the entire pension and pensionary benefits, and permitted the petitioner to submit a representation for reconsideration of the penalty imposed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, and Ms. M. Kataky, learned Standing counsel, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 19.12.1997 and 24.09.2014 and further seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's all retiral benefits, such as pension, gratuity, etc. including arrear pension.

3. The facts, as can be discerned from the pleadings on record, show that the petitioner herein, while serving as Assistant Director, Headquarter, Dairy Development Department, Assam, was suspended vide notification dated 26.11.1992 pending drawal of departmental proceedings. Thereupon, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Veterinary Department, and a report was submitted on 16.11.1992 holding that the petitioner was negligent towards his duty, and proposing departmental enquiry against him including others for defalcation of certain public money. The petitioner thereupon challenged the said notification dated 26.11.1992 by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 639/1992. This Court, by an order dated 07.12.1992 stayed the said suspension order with further direction to the petitioner to file appeal before the competent authority. In pursuance thereto, vide another notification dated 11.12.1992, the Government suspended the earlier notification dated 26.11.1992. The petitioner thereupon submitted an appeal before the competent authority for revocation of the notification placing him under suspension. On 08.01.1993, a notification was issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Veterinary Department, disclosing consideration of the appeal submitted by the petitioner and upheld the notification dated 26.11.1992 placing the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings. Thereupon, on 30.01.1993, a Charge Memo was issued to petitioner asking him to show cause inter alia against the charge of defalcation of Rs. 6,28,450.00 relating to Town Milk Supply Scheme. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to quote herein-below the statement of allegation so made against the petitioner in the Charge Memo dated 30.01.1993:

“That while you were Superintendent, Town Milk Supply Scheme, Khanapara, you did not check the cash and accounts of the T.M.S.S. regularly as required as drawing and disbursing officer. You did not sign the Cash Book for months together, particularly in June, July and August in 1991. Also you defalcated an amount of Rs. 6,28,450.00 (Rupees Six Lakhs twenty-eight thousand four hundred fifty) only from the cash of the T.M.S.S. in collusion with Shri Aminoor Islam, Ex-Cashier, T.M.S.S., Khanapara.”

4. Thereupon the petitioner duly submitted his reply to the aforesaid Show Cause notice. The petitioner had also approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the notification dated 08.01.1993, whereby the suspension of the petitioner was upheld. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 192/1993. This Court, vide order dated 05.03.1993 directed the authorities to conclude the proposed departmental proceedings against the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed this Court. It is, however, relevant to take note that the said order dated 05.03.1993, as alleged by the petitioner, was not complied with by the respondent authorities, for which a contempt proceeding was initiated by the petitioner. Upon filing of the said contempt proceeding, another notification was issued on 08.10.1993 thereby re-instating the petitioner in service. It is also relevant to t