NANDA LAL DAS Vs. TRIPURA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
NANDA LAL DAS
TRIPURA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi,J. -
(1.) These petitions arise in common background. They are heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience we may record facts from WP(C) No.441 of 2020.
(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time was working as an Assistant Organizer (Khadi) in the Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Khadi Board). A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2011 in which three charges were levelled which read as under :
That Shri Ashis Kanti Saha, Assistant Organizer (Khadi) and Shri Nanda Lal Das, Jr. Supervisor while holding the charge of store of the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board(TKVIB) from time to time during the period from 14.02.94 to 06.11.99, received 301075 hanks of yarns valued at Rs.11,30,018.60 from the different centers of TKVIB through invoices. On receipt of 301075 hanks of yarns, they did not make entry of the yarns in the stoke register with an ulterior motive. They simply issued certificate on the reverse of the wages bill staring that the yarns were received in good condition. Non-giving entry of yarns in the relevant stock register(s) resulted in loss of Rs.11,30,018.60 of the Board; and for this, said Shri Ashis Kanti Saha and Shri Nanda Lal Das are jointly and severally responsible.
By showing the above activities Shri Ashis Kanti Saha and Shri Nanda Lal Das failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to their duties and what they did was unbecoming of the employees of the Board and thereby they violated the provision of Rule 3(I)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 as adopted by Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board vide No.TKB/GEN/BM/1(1)/90-91/Part-I/4047-50 dated 13.01.2011.
That during afore-mentioned period while Shri Ashis Kanti Saha, Assistant Organizer (Khadi) and Shri Nanda Lal Das, Junior Supervisor, held the charge of yarn store of the Board, they issued Yarns to the different centers of the Board as well as individual Weavers through invoice; as well as the register(s) maintained for the individual weavers with an ulterior motive; and thereby the Board sustained loss of Rs.4,86,732.00. For non-giving entry in the relevant Stock registers, Shri Ashis Kanti Saha and Shri Nanda Lal Das are jointly and severally responsible.
By showing the above activities Shri Ashis Kanti Saha and Shri Nanda Lal Das failed to maintain absolute integrity and devetion to their duties and what they did was unbecoming of the employees of the Board and thereby they violated the provision of Rule 3(I)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 as adopted by Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board vide No.TKB/GEN/BM/1(1)/90-91/Part-I/4047-50 dated 13.01.2011.
That during afore-mentioned period, while Shri Ashish Kanti Saha, Assistant Organizer (Khadi) and Shri nanda Lal Das, Junior supervisor held the Charge of the Yarn/cotton Store, they handled relevant register(s). After the closure of the first Stock Register of the year 1993-94 the second yarn Stock Register was opened; and while opening the second Stock Register the closing balance of the first stock register was not brought forward in the second Stock Register with an ulterior motive.'
(3.) The charge-sheet contained statement of imputation of misconduct in which in detail it was pointed out how the petitioner had deliberately caused substantial financial loss to the Khadi Board. A departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon completion of which the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.03.2016 holding that the charges were proved. Copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner on 12.04.2016. In response to which the petitioner wrote to the disciplinary authority on 19.04.2016 saying that he was ready to refund 50% of the amount and that he would not thereafter take shelter of law but he may be allowed to continue in the service and his family members may be saved from extreme financial hardship. In short no major penalty may be imposed. On 22.04.2016 the petitioner deposited the said promised sum of Rs.5,65,009/- comprising of 50% of the loss caused to the department. On 31.12.2016 the petitioner again wrote to the disciplinary authority and requested for leniency in punishment. He stated that he was the sole earning member of the family and if his service is discontinued his family would face extreme financial hardships. Considering such circumstances, the authority may impose any punishment other than extreme major penalty.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.