IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting that failure to do so can invalidate removal orders.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant petition has been filed challenging an order of removal from service dated 30.10.2015 after a disciplinary proceeding. The grounds of challenge, amongst others, are gross violation of the procedural laid down in law as well as violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was serving as the Assistant Director of the Handloom and Textile. Contemplating a departmental proceeding, he was placed under suspension vide an order dated 25.09.2003 which was followed by a show-cause notice dated 27.10.2003 wherein there were 2 nos. of charges. The first charge, in brief was insubordination as the petitioner had written directly to the Central Government for funds and the second charge is with regard to commission of forgery regarding a meeting of the State Level Project Committee. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner had submitted reply on 02.11.2003. According to the petitioner, no departmental proceeding was drawn up thereafter. After a gap of almost two years, on 18.06.2005, another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner containing 4 nos. of charges. As per the first charge, the petitioner had not maintained the Cash Book Account; the second charge related to non-maintenance of the subsidiary Cash Book; the third charge was regarding issuance of supply orders without approval of the competent authority and therefore there was gross miss-utilization of power and the fourth charge was opening a Current Bank Account without intimation to the higher authorities. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied to by the petitioner on 12.09.2005. The reply having found not to be satisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated in which an enquiry was conducted which had culminated in submission of a report. However, vide order dated 19.08.2006 issued by the disciplinary authority, the aforesaid enquiry report was not accepted and a de novo enquiry was directed which had accordingly started. The de novo enquiry culminated in a report whereby the same opinion of the previous report was reiterated. It is the submission of the petitioner that the de novo enquiry was held behind his back and without following the procedure.

3. Be that as it may, on 19.07.2007, a third show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner containing 8 nos. of charges. As per charge no. 1, the petitioner was charged as being extremely irregular in his duties; charge no. 2 was being absent without intimation; charge no. 3 was related to applying for earned leave which was not submitted in proper format; charge no. 4 was pertaining to the aspect of not maintaining accounts; charge no. 5 was pertaining to issuing of supply orders without following the office procedure in which the cheques had also bounced; charge no. 6 was pertaining to issuance of supply orders for 500 sets of looms without following the procedure; charge no. 7 was again on the issue of non-maintenance of accounts and charge no. 8 was on the aspect of receipt of funds from the Central Government without following the procedure. As per the petitioner, the charge nos. 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice no. 2 have been clubbed as charge no. 5 of the show cause notice no. 3. Further, charge nos. 1 and 2 of the show-cause notice no. 1 have been clubbed as charge no. 8 of the show-cause notice no. 3. On the aforesaid charges, enquiry was held which resulted in an enquiry report dated 04.09.2009. However, after a gap of more than 5 years, the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.10.2014 which the petitioner had replied to on 22.10.2014. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal and in relation thereto, he had filed WP(C)/793/2017 as the appeal was not disposed of. This Court, vide order dated 10.02.2017 had directed disposal of the appeal, pursuant to which, vide ord