BINOD KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs. ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-144
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 26,2018

Binod Kumar Choudhury Appellant
VERSUS
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NELSON SAILO,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. N. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, appearing for all the respondents.
(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-7) by which he has been imposed with a penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,89,105/- from his monthly salary @ Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from the month of June, 2016 in 48th installments and Rs. 9,105/- only in the last 49th installments.
(3.) Facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer and he was working as Manager at Swagat Retail Outlet at Betkuchi under the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC). He was posted as such from the year 2008. On 13.04.2015 some miscreants snatched an amount of Rs.9,78,210/- which was the collection of the Outlet meant to be deposited in the Gorchuk Branch of the State Bank of India. Pursuant to the incident, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Gorchuk Police Station and at the same time, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 09.10.2015 by the respondent No.2. In response to the show-cause notice dated 09.10.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.10.2015. The respondent authorities while issuing the show-cause notice to the petitioner also conducted 2 (two) internal inquiries and pursuant to which, 2 (two) internal inquiry reports dated 23.04.2015 and 24.04.2015 were submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred to as Rules of 1964) read with regulation 82 of the ASTC Employees Service Regulation, 1971. On 29.12.2015 (Annexure-5) asking him to show-cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 should not be inflicted upon him. As per the memorandum of charge issued to the writ petitioner, 3 charges were made against him and he was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of the memorandum.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.