Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 572 (GAU)

Razwaur Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam

2006-06-16

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2006
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Petitioner who is an Upper Division Assistant in the technical cell of the directorate of Panchayat and Rural development, Government of Assam by the present writ petition has challenged the disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.7.2003 inflicting the penalty of removal from service pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. 2. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of this case is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner while he was serving as Upper Division Assistant by issuing charge memo dated 28.1.2002 levelling the charges of misguiding superior officer with malafide intention, deliberate suppression of official documents, gross negligence of official duties, dishonesty and irresponsible behaviour which is unbecoming of a government servant and which has led to huge excess expenditure of government funds, on the allegation that though the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96 revising the purchase rates of G.C.I. Sheets under the APSP Act 1989 and lowering the earlier rate, was officially available with him on 7.3.97, he misguided his superior officer by giving wrong information that the copy of the minutes has become available in this Directorate only on 23.3.98 while he were not serving in the technical branch and that he did not take necessary steps for forwarding the copy of the minutes to the District Rural Development Agencies immediately to avoid wasteful expenditure of Govt. funds after the same became officially available to him during the month of March, 1997 and attempted to hide his responsibility and tried to shift it to other employees, though in the note put up on 7.3.97 in the newly opened file he acknowledge the receipt of the copy of the minutes mentioning the memo No. DI (II)/37/92/435/1603 dated 18.2.97, he erased the writing with white fluid and substituted the same with the memo No. GOC-10/95/96/157/316-26 dated 18.10.96, which is a copy of the minutes of the earlier technical committee meeting held on 8.10.96. Before issuance of charge memo the Petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 25.1.2002. Before issuance of charge memo the Petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 25.1.2002. The Petitioner on receipt of the charge memo submitted his show cause reply on 9.3.2002 stating inter alia that the then Joint Director (technical) namely Sri Ratneswar Deka, who was a member of the technical committee, after obtaining his own copy of the proceeding of the technical committee, meeting dated 20.12.96 handed over the same to him to put up in a separate file as the official copy was yet to be received and accordingly on the basis of such verbal instruction of Shri Deka, he opened the new file and same was docketed for placement before the said Joint Director (technical) for further necessary action, however, as the official copy was yet to be received he did not officially assigned/marked to take up the follow up action and therefore he had to delete the number already put up for forwarding the subsequent rates. It was further contended in the said written statement that because of the verbal instruction and order of the then Joint Director he was debarred from in processing the file, which he did so particularly as because copy of the proceeding was not formally endorsed, or marked to him and for that reason the earlier note along with the memo number was erased with, while fluid and thereafter the other official correspondences were put up and processed. The Petitioner also denied that the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee held on 20.12.96 was officially received by him on 7.3.97. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the Petitioner decided to proceed with the inquiry and accordingly the inquiry officer was appointed. In the said inquiry a number of witnesses were examined, wherein the reasonable opportunities were given to the Petitioner. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 29.11.2002 by holding that the Charge No. 1 and 2 framed against the charged officer i.e., Petitioner are proved on the basis of admissions made by him and also on the basis of material evidence on record. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 29.11.2002 by holding that the Charge No. 1 and 2 framed against the charged officer i.e., Petitioner are proved on the basis of admissions made by him and also on the basis of material evidence on record. The order of penalty dated 24.1.2003 was passed thereafter by the disciplinary authority removing the Petitioner from service, which came to be challenged by the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1023 of 2003 basically on the ground of non-furnishing the inquiry report to him before imposing the penalty thereby denying him to give the opportunity to make representation against the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. This Court vide order dated 27.2.2003 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of removal from service dated 24.1.2003 on the ground of non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report and further directing the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the said inquiry report and to allow the Petitioner to submit his reply and thereafter directing the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order after consideration of such reply. The learned Single Judge by the said order also directed the reinstatement of the Petitioner in service. Accordingly vide order dated 12.3.2003 the Petitioner was reinstated in service and on, 24.3.2003 a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was furnished to him. The Petitioner on receipt of the same submitted his representation against the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on 22.4.2003. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated 18.7.2003 inflicted the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. The Petitioner being aggrieved preferred a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 20.10.2005 by the Commissioner and Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development department. 3. I have heard Mr. H. Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. Though on the first date of hearing i.e. 23.5.2006, Mr. P.K. Mushahari, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate was present and express his inability to argue the case on that date, this Court after hearing of the argument of the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner fixed the case on 25.5.2006 for hearing of the argument of the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, but unfortunately on that date i.e. on 25.5.2006 none appeared on behalf of the Respondents to argue the case and hence after closing hearing, the judgment was kept reserved. 4. Mr. Roy, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the written statement filed by the Petitioner in the departmental proceeding has submitted that the Petitioner in the said written statement has narrated the actual happenings as to how and under what circumstances he had to eraser earlier noting with white fluid and thereby he has not admitted his guilt. According to the learned Counsel the inquiry officer basically recorded the finding of guilt against the Petitioner on the assumption that the Petitioner in the written statement has admitted that guilt though he never admitted his guilt and has only narrated actual happening occurred at the relevant point of time. It has further been submitted by the learned senior Counsel that though the allegation against the Petitioner in the charge memo is that because of the action on the part of the Petitioner, it has led to excess expenditure to the government fund, in fact there was no excess expenditure to the government fund, because of the fact that the decision of the technical committee taken on 20.12.1996 reducing the rate of G.C.I. Sheets has already been set aside by this Court in a writ petition filed by the supplier and hence there is no excess expenditure of Government fund. Mr. Roy, learned senior Counsel referring to the report of the inquiry officer has further contended that it is evident from the said report that the inquiry officer found that even the Director, Panchayat and Rural Development and both the Joint Directors (technical) who attended the meeting of the technical committee held on 20.12.1996 were responsible in not taking follow up action after the decision of the technical committee was taken on 20.12.96 and the Petitioner being only an Upper Division Assistant of the department has been victimized though it cannot be said that because of the lapse of the Petitioner only excess amount was paid to the suppliers, there being, other high officials in the department up to the rank of the Director. According to the learned Counsel the government in fact has not even initiated any action against those high officials and initiated action only against the Petitioner thereby adopted unfair and discriminatory attitude against the Petitioner as he was singled out for taking action. According to the learned Counsel the government in fact has not even initiated any action against those high officials and initiated action only against the Petitioner thereby adopted unfair and discriminatory attitude against the Petitioner as he was singled out for taking action. The learned senior Counsel further submits that even assuming that the Petitioner is guilty of erasing the note by applying the white fluid, he being a clerk in the department and keeping in view the fact that such action of the Petitioner in fact has not led to huge excess expenditure to the Government fund, because of the setting aside the decision of the technical committee to reduce the rate of GCI Sheets, coupled with the observation made by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report that the Director and other two Joint Directors were also responsible, the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved against the Petitioner and therefore, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority is required to be interfered with. The learned senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1982) 3 SCC 24 , Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 5. Though none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents argue the case as stated above, it appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the Respondents have taken the stand that the inquiry proceeding was conducted against the Petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving all reasonable opportunities to the Petitioner to defend himself. It has further been contended in the said affidavit that the action on the part of the Petitioner in erasing the earlier note which contained the decision taken by the technical committee in its meeting dated 20.12.1996, by putting the white fluid and replacing the same with the decision taken in the earlier technical committee meeting dated 8.10.96, which has been admitted by the Petitioner in the written statement, itself goes to show the involvement of the Petitioner in the matter. It has further been contended that even if minutes of the technical committee meeting dated 20.12.1996 was taken away by Shri Deka, the then Joint Director (technical) and directed him to cancel the note prepared on the basis of the such copy, the Petitioner ought to have brought to the notice of the higher official about the same and instead of doing it, he has erased the note by applying white fluid and thereafter putting up the note over there relating to the earlier technical committee decision taken on 8.10.1996, though in the subsequent meeting the technical committee reduced the rates of GCI Sheets. The said action on the part of the Petitioner therefore reflects the malafide intention of the Petitioner to suppress the reduction of the rate of GCI Sheets and also reflects the gross negligence of official duties as well as dishonesty. The Respondents in the affidavit has further contended that though the director and both the Joint Directors (technical) ought to have taken appropriate action in the matter of communication of the revised rates to the DRD As, but the fact remains that the Petitioner on his part also failed to carry out his official responsibility. According to the Respondents keeping in view the nature of charges proved against the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded against the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him, so this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review may not interfere with such punishment. 6. The first contention of the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the inquiry officer submitted his report with the finding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are proved mainly on the basis of the alleged admission made by him in the written statement though according to the senior Counsel the Petitioner never admitted the charges but he has narrated the actual events occurred at the relevant point of time. It appears from the charges levelled against the Petitioner and the statement of allegations in support of such charges that the allegations against the Petitioner was that though he prepared a note by opening a new file regarding purchase of G.C.I. Sheet under APSP Act 1989 for various rural development programme and on the basis of the proceeding of the technical committee meeting held on 20.12.1996 by which the rates of G.C.I. Sheets were reduced from the earlier rate fixed by the technical committee meeting held on 8.10.96, he subsequently erased the same by applying white fluid and by writing over there about the proceeding of the technical committee meeting held on 8.10.96, with a malafide intention, which amounts to gross negligence of official duties, dishonestly and irresponsible behaviour and which led to huge excess expenditure of the Government's fund. The Petitioner in the written statement as well as the statement made before the Inquiry Officer has not denied that fact but has explained under what circumstances he had to do it, stating that the personal copy of the said proceeding dated 20.12.1986 was handed over to him by Sri Dekai one of the Joint Directors (technical) and after writing the same in the note sheet as he was asked by Sri Deka he had to erase that note. Such narration of fact and the explanation given cannot in fact be treated as admission of the charges leveled against the Petitioner as he has not admitted that he did so with malafide intention and to suppress the official documents or negligence of official duties or dishonesty or irresponsible behaviour and/or the allegation that it has led to huge excess expenditure of Government fund. But it appears from the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer that the Inquiry Officer did not record the finding of guilt of the Petitioner only on the ground of his alleged admission of guilt but on the basis of other materials available on record. The inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer reflects that all the evidences on record were duly considered by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter recorded the finding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner have been proved. 7. The inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer reflects that all the evidences on record were duly considered by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter recorded the finding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner have been proved. 7. The writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot sit on appeal over the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the report or over the decision of the disciplinary authority taken on the basis of such finding. The writ Court's power is very limited to scrutinize the manner in which the decision is taken and to correct the error of law or procedural error of law leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be interfered with on the ground that the Inquiry Officer could have taken a different view of the matter. Such finding can be interfered with only if there is absolutely no evidence on record to record the finding that the charges are proved against the charged officer. If there is some evidences is available on record, it is open to the Inquiry Officer to record the finding of guilt against such charged officer, that is to say, where the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on some evidence, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding. In the instant case it is not the case of the Petitioner that there was absolutely no material on record to record the finding that the charges are proved but what has been contended by the learned senior Counsel is that the finding is basically recorded on the basis of the purported admission of guilt by the Petitioner. As discussed above, the Inquiry Officer did not record the finding of guilt only on the basis of the purported admission but on the basis of the other materials available on record also and therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer has committed any illegality in recording the finding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. 8. As discussed above, the Inquiry Officer did not record the finding of guilt only on the basis of the purported admission but on the basis of the other materials available on record also and therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer has committed any illegality in recording the finding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. 8. The next contention put forward by the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that even assuming the Petitioner is guilty of the charges level against him, the punishment of removal from service is highly excessive, talking into account the fact that the authority did not take any action against other high officials including the Director and Joint Directors and that the Petitioner was only the Upper Division Assistant in the department and it cannot be said that as because he put a wrong note, the fact of reducing the rate by the technical committee in its meeting dated 20.12.1996 was not known to anybody and will escape the notice of all the higher official up to the Director, when in the said meeting of the technical committee the Director was represented by the Joint Director. According to the learned Counsel though the Petitioner may have some negligence in erasing the note and putting another note over it and in not informing his higher officials about the verbal order given by. Sri R. Deka, the then Joint Director of technical department, he cannot be singled out for taking the disciplinary action and it cannot be said that as because he has erased the note there was huge loss to the Government's fund, as there was other high officials, who knew about the decision of the technical committee and they could have immediately taken action pursuant to the decision taken in the technical committee meeting on 20.12.1996. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in fact there was no such loss to the Government fund because of the fact that the High Court in W.P(c) No. 1351 of 1997 filed by one of the suppliers vide order dated 19.5.2003 has in fact set aside the decision of the technical committee taken in, its meeting held on 20.12.2006 reducing the rate and the matter was remanded to the concerned authority for taking a fresh decision and further observing that the question of recovery of any excess amount from the suppliers will depend upon the price that may be fixed accordingly. According to the learned Counsel as such there was no loss of Government revenue and hence the punishment of removal from service is highly excessive keeping in view the totality of the circumstances. 9. At this stage let me now discuss the case laws cited by the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner. In Bachan Singh (supra) a constitutional bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the penalty to be imposed in a criminal case has observed that it is an essential element of the rule of law that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the offence and if a law provides for imposition of a sentence which is disproportionate to the offence, it would be arbitrary and irrational, for it would not pass the test of reason and would be contrary to the rule of law and void under Article 14, 19and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has further been held that the principle of proportionality is implicit in these three Articles of the Constitution of India. In Bhagat Ram (supra), the Apex Court has held that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Bhagat Ram (supra), the Apex Court has held that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the Apex Court has held that the Court while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty but if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. The scope of judicial review of the disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary authority is therefore, limited to the extent indicated above. The Court can interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a disciplinary proceeding if taking into account the gravity of misconduct the penalty imposed shocks the conscience of the Court. 10. The report of the Inquiry Officer reveals a very serious aspect of the matter, as the Inquiry Officer in his report made certain additional observations wherein he has observed that even the Director, Panchayat and Rural Development as well as both the Joint Directors (technical), who attended the meeting of the technical committee held on 20.12.1996 cannot escape from their liabilities in not taking proper steps on the decision of the technical committee taken in its meeting dated 20.12.1996. The Inquiry Officer has in fact recorded the finding that the failure to take necessary steps for communicating the rates to the DRD As on the part of Sri R. Deka, the then Director (technical) was found to be intentional and it seems that the officer concerned acted in collusion in hiding the actual fact by suppressing official documents. In spite of such observation, it is an admitted position of fact that, no action was initiated and taken against those officers, by the authority. The observation made by the Inquiry Officer in his report is quoted below: ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: The following facts have come to the notice of the undersigned in the course of the enquiry without mentioning of which this report will be incomplete. The observation made by the Inquiry Officer in his report is quoted below: ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: The following facts have come to the notice of the undersigned in the course of the enquiry without mentioning of which this report will be incomplete. (a) The then Director, Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam was member of the Technical Committee No. 3 while Sri V.D. Singh and late R. Deka both joint Director (Technical) attended the meeting of the technical committee No. 3 held on 8.10.96 on his behalf, late R. Deka alone attended the meeting of the Technical Committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96. The Joint Directors concerned attended the meetings as representatives of the than Director and therefore the than Director was responsible for whatever decisions were taken in the meetings. If the deputed officers did not report the Director about the decisions taken in the meeting after attending the meetings, the Director could have called them at any time for necessary appraisal. The contention of Shri B. Basumatary, the then Director in the statement given on 27.8.2002 that the minutes of the meeting held on 8.10.96 was not brought to his notice is not understandable because of number of supply orders of G.C.I. Sheets were issued under his signature to different firms quoting the rages of G.C.I. Sheets as approved by the Technical Committee No. 3 in its meeting held on 8.10.96. That a number of supply orders were issued after 20.12.96 quoting the rates approved earlier is also very much evident as per materials on record though the rates had been lowered in the meeting held on 20.12.96. There draft supply orders were put up by the charged official on 11.3.97 and Shri V.D. Singh, Joint Director (T) put up the same to the Director on the same date. The file contains a photocopy of the minutes of the meeting of the technical Committee No. 3 held on 8.10.96 at SI. 1 to 3 without marking of the Annexure as SI. 4 because the minutes of the meeting held on 20.12.96 contains three leaves instead of four leaves. Though the Director was aware about the meeting held as declared in the statement dated 27.8.2002, no attempt appears to have been made to ascertain the decisions taken in the meeting held on 20.12.96. Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) was available in the office at that time for clarifying the matter. Though the Director was aware about the meeting held as declared in the statement dated 27.8.2002, no attempt appears to have been made to ascertain the decisions taken in the meeting held on 20.12.96. Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) was available in the office at that time for clarifying the matter. Some points needed clarifications because in File No. DPRD-12/58/96-97 there is a photocopy of the letter No. KRD-9/4/96-97/65 dated 4.2.97 from the Project Director DRDA, Karimganj whereby it was requested to furnish the approved rates of different construction materials including G.C.I. Sheets and also the sources from where the materials were to be procured. There is also a photocopy of the letter No. TDJ.30/96-97/2772 dated 21.2.97 from the Project Director, DRDA Tinsukia whereby approval for procuring different building materials including G.C.I. Sheets was sought from perusal of both these letters, it appears that there are no receipt numbers and seal of the Directorate and the charged official put up the draft supply orders on the basis of these photocopies. Moreover, the letter No. DRDJ-S4/96-97/10896-97 dated 20.11.96 from the Project Director, Sonitpur appears to be not kept in the file. As the approved rates of different construction materials including G.C.I. Sheets were in question, no attempt appears to have been made to find out the rates of G.C.I. Sheets as on 10.3.97/11/03.97 by the concerned officers though it was apparently. (b) The responsibility of late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) for not communicating the revised rates to the DRD As in time is established beyond any doubt. It was he who attended the meeting of the Technical Committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96 and the revised rates were effective from that very date. The failure to take necessary step for communicating of the rates to the DRD As immediately on his part is found to be intentional. It appears that he also received a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 20.12.96 from the Directorate of Industries, Assam under Memo No. DI(II) 37/92/435/1603 dated 18.2.97. But he suppressed the official documents even after the charged official opened the new file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97 and put up the copy of the minutes to him on 7.3.07 at Note Sheet No. 1 of the said file. But he suppressed the official documents even after the charged official opened the new file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97 and put up the copy of the minutes to him on 7.3.07 at Note Sheet No. 1 of the said file. As because the copy of the minutes was substituted in the file, it was not Late R. Deka but Shri V.D. Singh who put up the file to the Director. Late R. Deka could not have put up the file without mentioning the fact that he had attended the meeting on 20.12.96 and that the rates of G.C.I. Sheets had been revised. In fact it seems that the officers concerned acted in collusion in hiding the actual fact by suppressing official documents. However, this clever act was not clever enough as the charged official left sufficient clues in the file for detection of the criminal act. It is interesting to note that after sitting silent from 20.12.96 to 26.3.98, Late R. Deka suddenly became very active on 27.3.98 when the "Important Notice" from the Director of Industries, Assam was received under Memo No. DI (II) 37/92/Pi-1/34/4629 dated 26.3.98 and came to the notice of the then Director who had newly joined. As the new Director endorsed the Important Notice relating to the rates of G.C.I. Sheets as fixed by the Technical Committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96 to the Joint Director (T), it was natural that late R. Deka who had attended the meeting on 20.12.96 and who was the only Joint Director (Tech) at that time was required to put up the matter to the Director. Late R. Deka was not in a position to tell the new Director on 27.3.98 that he had attended the meeting held on 20.12.96 and that the rates of G.C.I. Sheets had been revised the reason for this is obvious because Late R. Deka could not have told the new Director that he was responsible for not communicating the revised rates to the DRD As. Late R. Deka tried to hide the actual truth by making a miserable attempt to show that a copy of the minutes of the meeting was handed over to him by the Head Assistant of the Industries Directorate/Department on 23.3.98. This copy of the minutes of the meeting is put up at SI. Nos. 32-34 of the file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97. Late R. Deka tried to hide the actual truth by making a miserable attempt to show that a copy of the minutes of the meeting was handed over to him by the Head Assistant of the Industries Directorate/Department on 23.3.98. This copy of the minutes of the meeting is put up at SI. Nos. 32-34 of the file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97. The reasons as to why Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) obtained a copy of the minutes on 23.3.98 have not been explained by him in his note. It is obvious that he could not have given any explanation. He never mentioned in his note dated 26.3.98 at Note Sheet Page 10/11 put up to the Director that he had attended the meeting on 20.12.96. He laid more stress on the fact that a copy of the minutes was received after a lapse of more than one year. Moreover, as the copy of the minutes put up at SI. 32-34 was forwarded to all members of the Technical Committee No. 3 Late R. Delta, Joint Director (T) tried to prove that the copy was not received earlier in the Directorate by asking Shri G. Kalita, Receipt Assistant to verify and report whether the letter No. DI(II) 37/92/435 dated 18.2.97 had been received in the Directorate by issuing a U/O Note No. DPRD-12/43/96-97/14 dated 24.3.98. Late R. Deka must have known throughout the period from 18.2.97 to 26.3.98 that no entry by the Receipt Assistant of the letter in question was made in Receipt Registrar of this Directorate. There are sufficient grounds to lead to the conclusion that even if the Directorate of Industries had forwarded a copy of the minutes to the Director, Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam, as a member Late R. Deka could have suppressed the said document. Because he also suppressed the copy of the minutes issued to him from the Directorate of Industries under Memo No. DI(II) 37/92/435/1603 dated 18.2.97. In fact, it appears that he suppressed the entire matter relating to the revision of rates of G.C.I. Sheets up 27.3.98 in collusion with the concerning officers/charged official. That the note put up by Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) in the file on 26.3.98 bears the signature of the Director shows that the notes dated 23.3.98/26.3.98 and the U/O note dated 24.3.98 and letter No. DPRD-12/58/96-97/35 dated 24.3.98 are back dated. That the note put up by Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) in the file on 26.3.98 bears the signature of the Director shows that the notes dated 23.3.98/26.3.98 and the U/O note dated 24.3.98 and letter No. DPRD-12/58/96-97/35 dated 24.3.98 are back dated. Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) must have influenced the Assistants concerned and made them a party to his misdeed. The manipulated date put by Dealing Assistant in the middle portion of the note sheet No. 10 and the discrepancies in the serial numbers of the papers in the file tell the whole story. (c) There is no doubt that Shri V.D. Singh, did not attend the meeting of the Technical Committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96 as a representative of the Director. It is also known that his colleague Late R. Deka had attended the meeting. But it is not known, how could a responsible officer lime him could remain unaware of the fact that the rates G.C.I. Sheets had been lowered as he was directly involved the procurement of construction materials for the DRD As. It is simply shirking of responsibility under the cover of ignorance and it is not known how this can be accepted. The new file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97 was opened by the charged official under the instruction of Late R. Deka, Joint Director (T) as per declaration of the charged official. The charged official had used white fluid to erase some portions of his note. As it appears, Shri V.D. Singh, Joint Director (T) did not question about the opening of the new file and also about the erasions. He also did not raise any objection even after finding that a photocopy of the Memo No. GQC 10/95-96/157/316-26 dated 18.10.96 which is a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 8.10.96 issued to him by the Directorate of Industries, Assam was placed in the file No. DPRD-12/58/96-97 at SI. No. 1-3 which in fact should have been put up at SI. 1-1 as the said minutes contain 4 leaves. He himself has made out that he was an irresponsible officer as he did not discuss about the decisions of the meeting hold on 20.12.96 with his colleague Late R. Deka. No. 1-3 which in fact should have been put up at SI. 1-1 as the said minutes contain 4 leaves. He himself has made out that he was an irresponsible officer as he did not discuss about the decisions of the meeting hold on 20.12.96 with his colleague Late R. Deka. In his note dated 10.3.97 put up to the Director, he suggested that instead of giving approval for purchase of G.C I. Sheets, supply orders were to be issued from the end of the Directorate. Before issue of such supply orders, the verification of the approval rates as on 10.3.97 should have been made. (d) The meeting of the Technical committee No. 3 was held on 20.12.96, but the copy of the minutes was not circulated till 18.2.97 from the Directorate of Industries after a delay of almost two months though the revised rates were to be effective from 20.12.96 and it was also not ensured that all members of the Committee received a copy of the same formally. From the minutes of the meeting of the Technical Committee No. 3 held on 20.12.96, it appears that Shri D.P. Kedia, Commercial Consultant of M/S. Assam Asbestos Ltd. was present in the meeting. It can safely be assumed that the authorities of both the local industries involved viz. M/S. Assam Asbestos Ltd. and M/S Kamrup Roofings Ltd. were aware of the revision of rates of G.C.I. Sheets which were to be effective from 20.12.96. But it is learnt that inspite of this known fact, bills were submitted at the earlier rates and payment acknowledged accordingly. While the official authority was responsible for not making available the revised rates in time, the firms were equally responsible for claiming payments at the rates higher than the approval rates, thereby violating the provisions of the APSP Act. 11. In the instant case there is no doubt about the negligence of the Petitioner. There is also no doubt that the removed the earlier note reflecting the decisions of the technical committee taken on 20.12.1996 with the help of white fluid and recorded another note over there reflecting the earlier decision of the technical committee taken on 8.10.96, though by the subsequent decision the technical committee reduced the rate for purchase of GCI Sheets. There is also no doubt that the removed the earlier note reflecting the decisions of the technical committee taken on 20.12.1996 with the help of white fluid and recorded another note over there reflecting the earlier decision of the technical committee taken on 8.10.96, though by the subsequent decision the technical committee reduced the rate for purchase of GCI Sheets. But at the same time it appears that the Petitioner is only an Upper Division Assistant in the Directorate and there are other officers up to the rank of the Director and whose complexity in the matter as observed by the Inquiry Officer cannot be ruled out. The Inquiry Officer in fact has made certain observations against the Director as well as two other Joint Directors (technical), who were also found to be involved/negligent in performing their duties, but surprisingly the authority admittedly did not initiate any action against those officers and on the other hand Petitioner has been signed out for taking action. It is also equally true that as because action against the other persons have not been taken, that will not absolve the petitioner from his involvement in the matter. But to scrutinize as to whether the punishment of removal from service shocks the conscience of court, the totality of the circumstances have to he looked into. There is no dispute that the Petitioner is involved in the matter and he was negligent but at the same time in the technical committee meeting held on 20.12.1996 the Director nominated one Joint Director as his representative, who was personally present in the meeting and knew about the decision taken and secondly he being the Director’s representative in such committee, the Director is also supposed to know about the decision taken. It also cannot be said that as because the Petitioner, who is an Upper Division Assistant, suppressed the decision of the technical committee by erasing the note, the decision taken by the technical committee will escape everybody’s notice up to the level of Director. The Upper Division Assistant is not responsible for disbursement of any amount or passing any bills. The responsibility is on other higher officers and who were equally duty bound to circulate the decision of the technical committee, which has not been done in the instant case. The Upper Division Assistant is not responsible for disbursement of any amount or passing any bills. The responsibility is on other higher officers and who were equally duty bound to circulate the decision of the technical committee, which has not been done in the instant case. The Petitioner being Upper Division Assistant is singled out for the purpose of taking disciplinary action with out initiating any proceeding or action against the higher officials including the Director of that Directorate. Moreover as is evident from the order dated 19.5.2003 passed in Civil Rule No. 1351 of 1997 that the decision of the technical committee taken in its meeting dated 20.12.1996 has been set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted to the authority to take a fresh decision and thereafter recover the amount from the suppliers, if any. The respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition has not disputed the said position. There fore, actually no loss to the Government revenue has been caused because of the action on the part of the Petitioner in erasing the earlier note. 12. As held by the Apex Court in various pronouncements the penalty imposed in a disciplinary proceeding against an officer must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. In the instant case it appears from the discussions made above that the punishment of removal from service is too harsh keeping in view the misconduct committed by the Petitioner as well as the entire facts and circumstances of this case. The appellate authority also, did not address itself to the aspect of proportionality of the punishment, though such authority is duty bound to do so under Rule 15A of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I set aside the order of removal of the Petitioner from service dated 18.7.2003 as well as the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the appellate authority in the departmental appeal and remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and to award appropriate penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. Petition allowed