PER ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner at the material point of time was accountant -in -charge at Dhubri departmental purchase centre (DPC) office of the Jute Corporation of India in Assam. In this proceeding, he challenges the legality of a disciplinary proceeding in which he was charged with the offence of misconduct unbecoming of a public servant. The specific allegation against him was exhibiting callousness, lack of responsibility and lack of devotion to duty, which had given scope to a theft of rupees three thousand three hundred and forty two from an iron safe of the said office.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on or about 7 March 1981, in order to get certain documents which were necessary, he had broken the lock of the safe in the departmental purchase centre of the corporation as the subsisting lock become dysfunctional. The petitioner claims to have broken the lock after intimating the state of affairs to the Regional Manager of the organisation, and on his instruction over the telephone. According to the petitioner, the lock was actually broken open at his instruction by one Madan Mohan Saha, night guard. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have counted the cash to ascertain the same would cover payment of certain bills, and put another lock on the safe made available by the said night guard, and retained the key. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had enquired about the duplicate key from the said night guard, and was informed that the duplicate key was lying with the junior accountant of the said office. On the following day i.e. 8 March 1981 when he went back to the said office for the purpose of keeping certain cheques signed by the Regional Manager of the organisation in the safe, he found the money from the safe missing. The petitioner thereafter lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Dhubri Police station. He had also informed the higher officials of the said organisation about the theft.
(3.) AT that point of time, it appears, there was a sum of rupees three thousand three hundred and forty two only in the safe. The petitioner thereafter was issued a memorandum containing articles of charges and statement of allegations bearing No. JCI/ 3(2)/DPC/vig/81/Pt.ll dated 13 July 2010 (1981). By this memorandum, a departmental proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were in relation to the incidence of theft of the said sum, and the substance of the allegations against the petitioner was lack of responsibility, lack of devotion to duties and exhibiting callousness. The petitioner explained his position by filing a reply on 30 July 2010 (1981). The authorities, however, were not satisfied with his reply, and decided to hold an enquiry. The petitioner indicated that in view of the explanation already given, he was not inclined to give any further explanation and desired to be heard in person. Thereafter, a practising Advocate of this Court was appointed as enquiry officer;