- (1.)BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.04.2006, passed by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Assam State Co -operative Marketing Consumers Federation Limited (STATEFED), directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,63,343.75 from his arrear dues.
(2.)CASE of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Inspector in STATEFED, he was served with a show cause notice dated 17/20.12.1990, issued by the Managing Director, STATEFED asking him to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, Service Regulations of STATEFED and the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be imposed on him for the charges mentioned therein. Sum and substance of the charges brought against the petitioner is that while he was working as Inspector in the Mission Chariali godown of STATEFED under Tezpur Branch, he was responsible for shortage of various quantities of rice of different categories, the value of which was assessed at Rs.5,63,343.75. Petitioner was accordingly charged with misappropriation of the aforesaid amount.
(3.)IT appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in the order dated 21.09.1991, passed by the Managing Director, STATEFED, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.
Petitioner approached this Court against the aforesaid order of dismissal by filing Civil Rule No. 3924/1993. This Court by order dated 10.09.1996 held that petitioner was denied a fair inquiry as adequate opportunity was not granted to him to submit written statement. It was also held that no witnesses were examined and the documents produced by the Presenting Officer were admitted and accepted without allowing the petitioner to examine the same. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but without any back wages. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to hold a domestic enquiry in accordance with law, if it was considered necessary.