KHAGENDRA NATH TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while was serving as Junior Engineer under the respondents was issued with a charge sheet dated 8.4.86. The charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:

(2.) While you were in charge of the store, the losses with Rs. 1,07,045.80 occure during your incumbency, when the physical verification done by E.E. M.C.C. Division which you have not reported to the S.D.O. or E.E. M.C.C. Division. You are therefore charged for concealment of fact with motive behind and misappropriation of Govt. property." 2. In response to the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his written statement in defense as was asked for denying the charges leveld against him. According to the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the materials in question were stored in open space in road side without any protective barricade. The rusting of the materials during the period of 10/12 years also caused loss in weight of the materials as explained by the petitioner in his written statement. Referring to an order dated 27.7.71 permitting 2 percent weight tolerance, it was explained by the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of the said order. Thus there was total denial on the part of the petitioner relating to the charges levelled against him.

(3.) Thereafter a regular departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and by an order dated 23.2.89 the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,07,045.80 in suitable instalments from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner, in reference to his earlier representation dated 27.4.89 made a further prayer by Annexure-D representation to furnish him with the copy of the enquiry report. However, the same was not furnished to him. He preferred a departmental appeal on 23.5.89 taking the specific plea of non-furnishing of the enquiry report and also about the permissible weight tolerance to the extent of 2 percent. By an order dated 27.7.90 the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with the following findings.