An employee cannot successfully challenge disciplinary action due to non-supply of inquiry report unless they demonstrate actual prejudice, particularly when alternative remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent P&RD.

2. The petitioner before this Court by way of the present proceedings prays for setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 11.04.2013 and the consequential order of removal from service dated 26.04.2013.

3. The essential facts in the present lis are that the petitioner, at the relevant point in time was serving as an Extension Officer (Panchayat) as well as In-charge Block Development Officer of Katigorah Development Block under the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development, Panjabari, Guwahati. For alleged misappropriation of Rs.10,41,190/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety) in implementing a scheme under I.A.Y. for the period of 2006-2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings by order dated 13.06.2008 bearing Memo No. RDD/125/2007/72-A. By show cause notice No.PDDE(II)25/2008/11-13 dated 19.07.2008, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India lavelling three charges against the petitioner. The show cause notice served on the petitioner contained the statement of allegations that as in his capacity as Block Development Officer in Silchar Development Block, for the period 30.10.2006 to 04.04.2007, petitioner received a total amount of Rs. 1,17,24,920/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty) against construction of IAY Houses from the Project Director, D.R.D.A. Cachar but he had shown a total expenditure of Rs. 1,07,13,344/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakh Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four). He was therefore, charged with attempt to misappropriate Government money as the public fund was kept by him without dispersing it for the purpose for which it was drawn from the account.

4. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his written statements on 09.08.2008. The disciplinary authority thereafter, by order dated 25.08.2008 appointed the Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer in respect of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

5. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated in service and was transferred and posted in Katigorah Development Block in the same capacity. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.3319 of 2011 praying for quashing of the departmental proceedings initiated against him. By order dated 28.01.2013, the writ petition came to be disposed of by Coordinate Bench directing the respondent authority to conclude the departmental proceedings drawn up against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.07.2008 within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. The respondents were directed to follow all procedural safeguards before taking the final decision in the matter.

6. Pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, the proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer concluded the inquiry proceedings and submitted a report dated 23.03.2013.

7. The disciplinary authority by order dated 11.04.2013 accepted the findings and came to the conclusion that this is a fit case where major penalty of not less than removal from Government service will meet