Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 496 (GAU)

Atul Chandra Dutta v. State of Assam

2008-07-09

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2008
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D.N. Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for respondents. 2. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.2.2005 issued by the Managing Director of Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Guwahati, dismissing the petitioner from service and directing him to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,14,004.99 with the corporation. The facts in brief are set out hereunder: 3. The petitioner, an employee of the Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation'), while he was posted at its Rangia Sale point as an Assistant Field Officer during the years 1996 to 2003, was served with charge sheet on 23.12.2003, containing as many as 8 charges and was asked to submit written statement in defence within 10 days. He was, of course, informed that in case he intends to inspect the documents having relevance with the issues under enquiry, he should write to the managing director of the Corporation within 7 days from the date of communication of the charge sheet and submit the explanation thereafter within 10 days from the date of completion of the inspection. Without availing the chance offered to inspect the relevant documents, the petitioner submitted his written statement dated 5.1.2004, to the M.D. of the corporation. The respondents thereafter initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by appointing one Sri S.C. Bhattacharyya, Marketing Officer, as Enquiry Officer and Sri P. Achariya, Assistant Accounts Officer, as Presiding Officer vide an order dated 27.2.2004, issued by the managing director of the Corporation. The said enquiry officer vide his letter dated 1.3.2004, intimated the petitioner that the enquiry would be held on 16.3.2004 and asked him to furnish the list of witnesses, if any, on or before 8.3.2004. He was also informed that he would not be allowed to bring any legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry. The presiding officer aforesaid, was also requested to furnish the list of witnesses, if any, and the relevant documents before the enquiry officer on or before 8.3.2004. During enquiry, the presiding officer examined no witnesses and exhibited no documents. The petitioner was not provided with a defence assistant of his choice to defend himself. The presiding officer aforesaid, was also requested to furnish the list of witnesses, if any, and the relevant documents before the enquiry officer on or before 8.3.2004. During enquiry, the presiding officer examined no witnesses and exhibited no documents. The petitioner was not provided with a defence assistant of his choice to defend himself. The petitioner was just questioned by the enquiry officer with regard to the charges and the presiding officer made his statements from the records of the corporation, which were not exhibited in the enquiry. 4. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 16.4.2004, holding all charges against the petitioner proved. The second show-cause notice dated 14.6.2004, along with the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner asking him to reply why the amount mentioned against charge No. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 should not be recovered from him and appropriate action should not be taken against him with respect to charge No. 1, 4, and 6. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.6.2004, but the same was not found to be satisfactory and the respondent Managing Director, vide his letter dated 19.10.2004 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,14,004.99, to the Corporation. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12.11.2004 but the same was not considered by the respondents and issued an order dated 16.2.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service and directing him to deposit the aforesaid amount to the corporation, failing which the amount would be recovered from his receivable salary and gratuity. 6. Mr. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned dismissal order is bad in law inasmuch as the same was passed on the basis of enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer without following the established procedure in the departmental proceeding. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dasgupta would point out to the following irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer- (1) the presiding officer neither adduced any evidence nor exhibited any document. (2) the Enquiry Officer did not apprise the petitioner of his valuable right to take assistance of a co-worker of his choice to defend him in the enquiry. (3) the document relied by the presiding officer was produced before the Enquiry Officer prior to the enquiry proceeding held on 16.3.2004. (2) the Enquiry Officer did not apprise the petitioner of his valuable right to take assistance of a co-worker of his choice to defend him in the enquiry. (3) the document relied by the presiding officer was produced before the Enquiry Officer prior to the enquiry proceeding held on 16.3.2004. The Enquiry Officer instead of asking the charge, proceeded with by questioning the petitioner with regard to charges and thereafter the presiding officer gave his reply. Thus the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer appeared to be an argument between the petitioner and the presiding officer. (4) No list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon by the disciplinary authority during enquiry was furnished to the petitioner. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Dasgupta, that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted in violation of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as, the list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority and the list of witnesses were not furnished to the petitioner. This Court, according to Mr. Dasgupta, has held in the case of Jallaluddin Laskar v. State of Assam and Ors. (1995) 2 GLR 383, that provision under Rule 9 is mandatory and non-compliance of the same shall make an enquiry invalid in the eye of law. Rule 9(2) of the said Rules is relevant for this case, which is quoted below- 9(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. 8. In a subsequent case of Dinesh Chandra Ray v. State of Assam and Ors. 2000(2) GLT 413, held that non-furnishing of list of documents and list of witnesses at the time of delivery of charges cause prejudice to the charged employee and vitiates not only the disciplinary proceedings but also the order of removal. In both the cases cited above, this Court interfered with and quashed the findings of the Enquiry Officer and applying the same principle of law, Mr. In both the cases cited above, this Court interfered with and quashed the findings of the Enquiry Officer and applying the same principle of law, Mr. Dasgupta calls upon this Court to set aside the impugned dismissal order with directions to reinstate the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner was left undefended before the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as he was not afforded an opportunity of appointing a co-worker of his choice as Defence Assistant. The petitioner vas not even informed about his right to appoint such Defence Assistant although it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to do so to afford the opportunity to appoint Defence Assistant. It has caused prejudice to the petitioner and on that score the departmental proceeding is vitiated and the same should be declared null and void. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dasgupta refers to a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of Manipur v. Chongtham Homendra Singh 2005(2) GLT 568. 9. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 is not required to be followed in this case inasmuch as the petitioner admitted the charges brought against him. In a case where the delinquent admits the charges, according to Mr. Das, the Enquiry Officer is not required to hold oral inquiry and as such no question of procedural irregularity in conducting the disciplinary proceeding in the present case can be raised. As the charges were admitted, the petitioner was not required to be furnished with the documents. The petitioner never demanded for furnishing of any document the disciplinary authority intended to relied upon. Nor did he ever ask for providing opportunity to engage any employee to assist in the proceeding. It was not the duty of the Enquiry Officer to apprise him of his right to take the assistance of a co-worker to defend him in the enquiry. The petitioner was, intact, given opportunity to produce witness in support of his defence, which he did not avail. He was given ample opportunity during the enquiry to have his say but since he admitted the charges, he had nothing more to add. Therefore, the petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner for non-production of witness and non-furnishing of document to him. He was given ample opportunity during the enquiry to have his say but since he admitted the charges, he had nothing more to add. Therefore, the petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner for non-production of witness and non-furnishing of document to him. The above submission of Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel rest mainly on the case of Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 565 . 10. To a great inconvenience to this Court, the petitioner, although it was a must on his part, did not annex a copy of the show cause reply to establish his plea that he did not admit the charges as contended by the respondents, rather he denied them all. To a great relief, the respondents produced the record but it is found that the show cause reply is in Assamese and handwritten which are hardly legible. On being demanded, Mr. Dasgupta for the petitioner assured this Court to furnish English rendering of the said show cause reply at the earliest but it was never furnished resulting into an undesired delay in delivering this judgment. I had to shoulder the burden of translation of the show cause reply on charges. Below are the English rendering which I believe would be acceptable by the parties. Charge No 1: That while you were working as AFO, AAIDC Ltd., Rangia, the total sale proceeds along with the opening cash balance (as on 1.4.2001 Rs. 31,069.65) stands at Rs. 94,834.65 as on 1.6.2002, against which you have shown an expenditure of Rs. 95,696.50. The expenditure so made for Rs. 95,696.50 had no approval of the Head Office. As per the norms of the corporation, you had to deposit the entire amount of sale proceeds to the bank account maintained at Rangia. You are, therefore, charged with negligence of duty, breach of trust and dishonesty. Reply: The amount shown in the case book of Rangia Sale Point as on 1.4.2001 was not a single day collection. It is a sale proceed of last few years collected after sale of fertilizer and small parts of agricultural implements. The amount of Rs. 94,834.65 was so collected by 1.6.2002. It was not possible to deposit the small amounts collected from time to time as sale proceeds in the Bank. It is a sale proceed of last few years collected after sale of fertilizer and small parts of agricultural implements. The amount of Rs. 94,834.65 was so collected by 1.6.2002. It was not possible to deposit the small amounts collected from time to time as sale proceeds in the Bank. Since we have not been receiving salary for last 22 months, we took amount from the said sale proceeds as advance towards salary to meet the difficulties and the same were recorded in the cash book for revalorization. Such drawing of salary is not a crime. It is not a misappropriation as well. It never happened so when we were paid salary regularly. The sale proceeds were not retained by me. Your honour asked all of us to collect the sale proceeds and get the salary paid by selling the fertilizer, small agricultural implements and machinery parts. The above mentioned amounts were collected by selling the said articles. Obeying your instructions we did not spend any amount from the sale proceeds of Power Tiller and Chemical fertilizer. We were not aware that a prior approval of the Head Office was necessary for spending amount from the sale proceeds. I hope, your honour would kindly accord approval and regularize the same. Whenever I needed money I used to receive cash amount from Mainur after signing the cash book. Charge No. 2: While you were working as AFO, Rangia Sale Point, you sold fertilizers to M/s. Bharat Biz Bhandar, Rangia for Rs. 4,18,521.60 vide Sale bill No. 2030 dated 31.3.2001 on credit. Out of which an amount of Rs. 3,72,967 has been realized on different dates leaving a balance of Rs. 45,554.60 (Rs. 4,18,521.60 - Rs. 3,72,967). You are therefore charged with dishonesty, criminal breach of trust and willful misappropriation of corporation's property. Reply: An amount of Rs. 3,72,967 was deposited to the Head Office of the Corporation out of the total amount of Rs. 4,18,521.60 given on credit to M/s Bharat Biz Bhandar out of balance amount of Rs. 45,554.60, supply of fertilizer worth Rs. 22,143.51 was made to the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer Rangia. Photocopies of the bills are enclosed. The amount from the SDAO against the Government Scheme has not yet been realized. The balance amount of Rs. 23,411.09 is yet to be realized from 4 dealers. I have not yet been able to realize the amount from the dealers. 22,143.51 was made to the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer Rangia. Photocopies of the bills are enclosed. The amount from the SDAO against the Government Scheme has not yet been realized. The balance amount of Rs. 23,411.09 is yet to be realized from 4 dealers. I have not yet been able to realize the amount from the dealers. The outstanding bills lying with the dealers are shown below: (1) Assam Krishi Biz Bhandar, Rangia : Rs. 6,000 (2) Mahendra Goswami, Rangia : Rs. 1,200 (3) Naren Deka, Baihata : Rs. 5,000 (4) Anggat Rajbongshi, Tamulpur : Rs. 11,200 Total Rs. 23,400 Charge No. 3: That during your incumbency as AFO, Rangia Sale Point, you have sold the materials as per Annexure A against the order mentioned against each item on subsidy for which no sale bill for Rs. 5,73,059.72 was raised as well as the beneficiary's portion to the extent of Rs. 49, 459.72 recorded in the cash book. This is a direct lapse on your part and loss to the corporation. The amount of beneficiary portion had not been deposited and kept by you. This you have done with ulterior, motive to derive personal gain. In course of audit of your accounts of the Rangia Sale Point, the above sale bills were raised by you on 2.9.2003, in front of the Auditors when detected by you. Reply: I informed your honour earlier that I was; not discharging the duty of receipt and issue in the godown. There was no cash amount in my hand. I used to receive amounts from Mainur after signing. This will be proved on examination of the challans. Sometime we used to take money as salary from the money we collected. The amount of Rs. 14,534.00 received by Mainur has been realized by the Head Office after deducting the same at the time of his voluntary retirement. I shall also get the amount of Rs. 34,925.72 payable by me deducted at the time of my voluntary retirement. The money collected in small amounts on account of subsidy from the beneficiaries were utilized by the staff as salary as the corporation did not pay us salary for last 20/22 months. We were compelled to do so in the interest of survival of the sale point. Your honour is aware that the subsidy from the beneficiary is not the capital money of the corporation. We were compelled to do so in the interest of survival of the sale point. Your honour is aware that the subsidy from the beneficiary is not the capital money of the corporation. I therefore, request your honour not to treat the taking of money as salary from the subsidy as misappropriation. Further I request your honour to accord approval and regularize the same. We are helpless if receiving of salary for duties rendered is treated as a crime. Charge No. 4: That while you were working as AFO in the Rangia Sale Point of the corporation you received an amount of Rs. 18,440 vide Rangia Sale Point's M/R No. 21222 dated 11.4.2002, being the payment of salary and house rent. But the said amount has not been recorded into the cash book till audit was conducted on 2.9.2003. This is a direct case of misappropriation and you have willfully kept the amount to derive illegal personal gain. You are therefore, charged with misappropriation, breach of trust and negligence of duty. Reply: As the house owner could not be contacted, I asked Mainur to pay the house rent. He might have paid the house rent to the house owner in time but he forgot to give me the receipt of the payment. I also forgot to take it from him. On 2.9.2003, three receipts were found from his drawer. He handed them over to me and I got it regularized after making necessary entries in the cash book. One of them is for Rs. 11,000 on account of payment of house rent and the rest for Rs. 7,740 on account of payment of salary. This will be proved by examining the payment receipt issued to the house owner. Charge No. 5: That while you were working as AFO in the Rangia Sale Point. You issued the following lugged wheel carrier to the different beneficiaries: Delivery Challan Date Quantity Amount 23801 10.4.2002 1 410 23802 11.4.2001 1 410 23803 26.4.2001 1 410 23804 26.4.2001 1 410 23825 27.4.2001 1 410 23835 8.4.2001 1 4107 Total 6 2460 The beneficiary's portion to the extent of Rs. 2,460 has not been accounted/recorded into the cash book. This is a direct case of misappropriation and you have criminally misappropriated the scarce working capital of the corporation and you are to make good of the losses to the corporation. 2,460 has not been accounted/recorded into the cash book. This is a direct case of misappropriation and you have criminally misappropriated the scarce working capital of the corporation and you are to make good of the losses to the corporation. You are, therefore, charged with dishonesty, breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of corporation's property. Reply: Sir, we are staff of the corporation who have not been paid salary for last 20/22 months. On the pressure of the customers the power tillers were delivered from Khanapara as per order from the Head Office. We thereby derived profit of Rs. 800 per power tiller and in total Rs. 4.8001 spent Rs. 1,640.00 from the profit received from four power tillers, which would be deducted from my salary. The profit from others power tillers, was spent by Mainur. I could not repay the amount of Rs. 1,640.00 since we have not yet received the salary. This amount may be deducted from my payable amounts at the time of my voluntary retirement. The amount of Rs. 820.00 spent by Mainur may also be realized from his salary. This would be proved on examination of the Challan. Charge No. 6: That while you were working as AFO at Rangia Sale Point of the corporation, you received an amount of Rs. 23,028 on 31.5.2002 being sale proceeds. But you have recorded an amount of Rs. 20,028 (Rs. 5,596 + 14,432) vide cash book folio dated 31.5.2002 instead of Rs. 23,028 and accordingly Rs. 3,000 has been shown less. You are therefore charged with criminal breach of trust, dishonesty and willful misappropriation of corporation's fund. Reply: Sir, while I was at Rangia Sale Point, I had to make entries in the cash book amidst busy workload. As I had to go out in the field for commercial purpose, I used to record the transaction of 3/4 days in the cash book in a day. There may be wrong entries in the cash book because I used to attend the customers at the time of making entries. Since the wrong entry is now detected, I would deposit the amount with the Head Office provided your honour allows me to do so. I beg for forgiveness for the mistake unknowingly committed by me. I had no ill motive to misappropriate the amount. Since the wrong entry is now detected, I would deposit the amount with the Head Office provided your honour allows me to do so. I beg for forgiveness for the mistake unknowingly committed by me. I had no ill motive to misappropriate the amount. Charge No. 7: That during your incumbency as AFO, Rangia Sale Point of the corporation as physical stock verification was conducted by the Senior Audit Officer of the corporation on 2.9.2003 in your presence, which was signed by you and the Senior Audit Officer himself. In course of verification, the following amount of shortages were found after deduction of accumulated shortages of Rs. 1,15,285.80. Details of value of shortages are furnished below: (1) Value of shortage against Spare Parts - Rs. 15,768.00 (2) Value of shortage against Fertilizers - Rs. 1,58,712.67 Total - Rs. 1,74,480.67 Over and above, the following accumulated shortages were shown by you with effect from February 1996 to 2.9.2003: (1) Urea 9.446 MT @ 3,539 Rs. 33,429.39 (2) DAP 6.725 MT @ 7,825 Rs. 52,646.60 (3) SSP 7.205 MT @ 2,850 Rs. 20,534.25 (4) MOP 2.027 MT @ 4,280 Rs. 8,675.56 Value of accumulated shortages – Rs. 1,15,285.80 w.e.f. February 1996 to 2.9.2003. This is a direct loss to the corporation to the tune of Rs. 2,89,766.47 (Rs. 1,74,480.67 + Rs. 1,15,285.80). Therefore, you have dishonestly misappropriated the said stock with ulterior motive to derive illegal personal gain. You are, therefore, charged with dishonesty, criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of corporation's property. Reply: (1) As regards 6 Nos. of Hymatic Sprayers, it cannot be treated as a loss because they were issued to Sub-Divisional Agriculture, Officer, I know about 2 sprayers issued by Mainuddin but I do not know about the other 4 sprayers and because of this, the SDAO did not certify the bills. In respect of shortage of 7'Nos. of Lagani Chullah, I gave 4 Nos. of them to 4 officers in the commercial interest of the corporation. The following are the 4 officers: Name Quantity of Chullah (a) SDAO, Tamulpur Late (Kamini Kalita) 1 Nos. (b) Agricultural Extension Officer, Balistra (Shri Roy) 1 Nos. (c) AEO, Rangia Development Block. 1 Nos. (d) Ex-Employee of AAIDC Ltd. (Naren Das) 1 Nos. I shall pay the value of aforesaid 4 chullahs from the; amount of voluntary retirement. The following are the 4 officers: Name Quantity of Chullah (a) SDAO, Tamulpur Late (Kamini Kalita) 1 Nos. (b) Agricultural Extension Officer, Balistra (Shri Roy) 1 Nos. (c) AEO, Rangia Development Block. 1 Nos. (d) Ex-Employee of AAIDC Ltd. (Naren Das) 1 Nos. I shall pay the value of aforesaid 4 chullahs from the; amount of voluntary retirement. The value of other chullahs has already been paid to the Head Office by Ahmed at the time of his voluntary retirement. The account of amount deducted is enclosed. I shall also pay the cost of one sprayer of 10 lit cap as I gave it to one of our corporation's staff. (2) I have already stated that I was not posted in the godown. This will be proved by the challans. As per instructions of the Head Office we sold the fertilizer on credit. The sale proceeds of the said fertilizers sold on credit, were collected by Mainur but he did not deposit the same. Nor did he issue any cash memo for the same. For example he did not deposit the amount of 44 bags of urea realised by him from M/s. Bharat Biz Bhandar and in spite of repeated requests by me in this regard, the shortages of such nature remained unsettled. However, an amount of Rs. 39,960 has been deducted from the amount of VRS sanctioned to him. In this regard I requested the Head Office long back to deduct the said amount from his VRS amount. The irregularities in regard to Bharat Biz Bhandar is known to two other employees of the corporation, namely Md. Rumizuddin Ahmed and Md. Aftab Ali. The fertilizer traders of Rangia are known to your honour and as such there would be no difficulty in collecting the proof thereof. Many things will come out if the slips, go down register and cash Memo's issued by Mainur to Mukunda are examined. I request your honour to examine them. As regards the value of shortage of fertilizer to the tune of Rs. 1,58,712.67, I would like to inform you that the shortage at the Rangia Sale Point had been taking place since its inception. The irregularities in the weight and measures are always there in each branch and sub-branch of the corporation. This shortage is due to irregularities in the weight and measures since the beginning for which nobody is to blame. 1,58,712.67, I would like to inform you that the shortage at the Rangia Sale Point had been taking place since its inception. The irregularities in the weight and measures are always there in each branch and sub-branch of the corporation. This shortage is due to irregularities in the weight and measures since the beginning for which nobody is to blame. There is no misappropriation, ill motive or personal gain and loss of any individual. All would be found from the stock book. Charge No. 8: That while you were working as AFO, Rangia Sale Point of the corporation the following materials were sold to one Sri Zakir Hussain as detailed below on credit. Delivery Challan No. Date Quantity Value of Materials Ammount Realised Balance Urea M/R Amt. 3850 7995 15.12.2003 6.353 MT 1337 24,900 1860 7.1.2000 3.647 MT 1338 10,600 35,500 But against the total amount of Rs. 39,350 you have realised Rs. 35,500 leaving a balance of Rs. 3,850. This you have done willfully to derive personal gain. You are, therefore, charged with misappropriation of corporation's property and negligence of duty which amounts to gross misconduct. Reply: I received an amount of Rs. 35,500 only being the value of 7 tonnes of urea for which two money receipts were issued. But due to wrong calculation this amount of Rs. 35,500 was shown instead of Rs. 39,350. Since Zakir Hussain made deposit of the amount of Rs. 3,850, the question of misappropriation does not arise. The unrealised money would not bring any personal gain or loss to anybody. As Zakir is a fertilizer agent, steps may be taken to realise the money from him. I shall be able to realise the money from him and deposited the same with the corporation, if your honour allows me to do so. I request your honour to give me the due permission. 11. In his reply to show cause, the petitioner, as it could be seen from above has been trying to attribute all the alleged irregularities to non payment of salary to him and other staff of the sale point by the corporation for last 20/22 months. Admittedly the petitioner utilised the sale proceeds etc., on account of their monthly salary for their subsistence with a hope for adjustment with their receivable salary on being deducted from the amount to be sanctioned to them for VRS, for which he has applied for. Admittedly the petitioner utilised the sale proceeds etc., on account of their monthly salary for their subsistence with a hope for adjustment with their receivable salary on being deducted from the amount to be sanctioned to them for VRS, for which he has applied for. There is a clear admission to the effect that the sale proceeds collected were deposited neither in the bank nor with the Head Office of the corporation. There is no approval for doing so, yet the petitioner tried to justify it as not; a case of misappropriation. 12. The petitioner disputed none of the allegations of irregularities alleged in the charge sheet. The figures in the alleged amounts of misappropriation as temporary misutilisation, whatever may be called, were not questioned by the petitioner. No doubt the words like "I deny" or "I admit" were not used in the show cause reply, but on careful reading and consideration of the same there would be no difficulty for any reasonable man to comprehend that the petitioner did not deny the charges, rather admitted them all with abortive attempts to justify on personal grounds like hardship caused mainly due to non-receipt of salaries for several months. The petitioner has agreed and assured to make good of the loss caused to the corporation and also to refund all the amounts utilised by him in an unauthorised manner, by deduction from the amount to be received at the time of his voluntary retirement. I find and agree with Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner admitted the charges against him for which he agreed to repay the amounts irregularly/illegally utilised by him and for which he prayed forgiveness of the respondent authorities. 13. Now the questions arises as to whether the authorities should, in such cases, proceed with regular and detailed enquiry. The admitted position is that no document was produced or exhibited nor any witness was examined by the department. In the case of Tara Chand Vyas (supra) no witness was examined and it was held by the Apex Court that the objection to the effect that enquiry was vitiated because no witness was examined, is unsustainable. In my considered opinion the principle of law enunciated in the aforesaid case is applicable to this case and accordingly I hold that no procedural irregularity was committed by the enquiry proceeding in this case. 14. In my considered opinion the principle of law enunciated in the aforesaid case is applicable to this case and accordingly I hold that no procedural irregularity was committed by the enquiry proceeding in this case. 14. There is, however, a pressing need to examine whether any prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to non-production of documents and non-examination of witnesses by the disciplinary authority during the enquiry proceeding. If, of course, it is found that prejudice was indeed caused to him, the enquiry proceeding is liable to be declared void. In this case the petitioner, as the Assistant Field Officer and in-charge of Rangia Sale Point, was the custodian of the entire record of commercial transaction including the stock register, cash book, sales proceeds etc. Being the in-charge of the Sale Point he was well aware about the irregularities he committed by not depositing the sale proceeds etc., in the bank or with the Head Office and utilising the said amounts for personal purpose without due permission from the authorities. There was no need for him to look at the said documents again inasmuch as he was well conversant with them and he admitted those irregularities and assured to repay the amounts he spent illegally to the corporation. A witness is required to be produced and examined to prove a particular fact or allegation. In this case, as the petitioner has admitted the charges, the authorities felt it unnecessary to produce any witness. Under such facts and circumstances, I find no ground to hold that the petitioner was prejudiced due to non-production of witness by the disciplinary authority. 15. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, before or during the proceeding of enquiry, raised any objection on the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, particularly non-production and non-exhibition of documents or non-examination of witnesses. There is also no record of making any complaint that prejudice was caused to him. Nor was there any complaint from the petitioner in this respect. Even in his letter dated 12.11.2004, i.e., the reply to the second show-cause notice, no such complaint was made by him. Such complaint has been made by the petitioner, for the first time, in this writ petition only. Nor was there any complaint from the petitioner in this respect. Even in his letter dated 12.11.2004, i.e., the reply to the second show-cause notice, no such complaint was made by him. Such complaint has been made by the petitioner, for the first time, in this writ petition only. Under such circumstances, it can be safely held that the allegation of prejudice is nothing but an afterthought to get the dismissal order set aside for not following the procedure laid down by the statutory rules. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Kumar Rao Patil (1997) 6 SCC 339 , the Apex Court held that an allegation against an Enquiry Officer, if not made at the inception of the enquiry but made for the first time in the reply to show-cause notice is to be treated as an afterthought attempt to get over the report of the Enquiry Officer. The said decision of the Apex Court has a full application to the present case in respect of complaint not made before the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. 16. Law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 that at an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence on which he is charged and to lead his defence. At the same time, it is also held that where the delinquent admitted all the relevant facts on which the decision could be given against him it could not be said that the enquiry was in breach of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has admitted the facts of spending corporation's money without any approval from the Head Office but he has not admitted his guilt. It would not make any difference because in the said cited case, the Supreme Court held that admission of facts would amount to a plea of guilt if the admission of facts speaks for themselves. The petitioner's admission of fact of having misappropriated the corporation's money, may be temporarily, believing that it was, according to him, not an offence but it is quite so under the Indian Penal Code, amounts to admission of his guilt. The petitioner's admission of fact of having misappropriated the corporation's money, may be temporarily, believing that it was, according to him, not an offence but it is quite so under the Indian Penal Code, amounts to admission of his guilt. In such situation, in my considered opinion, the Enquiry Officer rightly directed himself in not going through the elaborate proceeding and the said enquiry is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. The authorities cited by Mr. Das Gupta are not applicable to this case because in those cases, the delinquents did not admit the facts and charges alleged against them and there were elements of violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the department enquiry. 18. As regards the allegation of denial of right to have the assistance of co-worker, it is to be noted that the petitioner is an experienced officer, holding a responsible post like Assistant Filed Officer, who is supposed to know the basic procedure of the departmental enquiry. In the case of State of Manipur v. Chongthan Homendra Singh (supra), the delinquents are Havildars, Constables, Riflemen etc. in the lowest rank of the Manipur Rifles, who are not supposed to know about the provisions of the rules. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, held that it was incumbent on the part of the Inquiry Officer to afford minimum justice to inform them that they are entitled to appoint a Defence Assistant to defend their case. The position of the present petitioner is not the same and as such I find that the aforesaid case cited by Mr. Das Gupta has no application to this case as no prejudice has been caused to delinquent officer. Such a ground, in my considered view, cannot be a sufficient ground for holding the departmental proceeding as vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. 19. Das Gupta has no application to this case as no prejudice has been caused to delinquent officer. Such a ground, in my considered view, cannot be a sufficient ground for holding the departmental proceeding as vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. 19. Having considered all aspects of the matter, having found the petitioner admitted the charges, participated in the enquiry proceeding without any objection and also having found the petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner for not producing or exhibiting any document or for not adducing any witness during enquiry proceeding and for that matter the principle of natural justice was not violated, I find no valid ground to interfere with the departmental proceedings and the impugned consequential order for dismissal of the petitioner from service and realization of the amount due from him. I find no merit in this case and accordingly the same is dismissed without any order as to cost. Petition dismissed.