Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1425 (GAU)

Ranjit Kr. Dey v. Union of India

2015-11-17

MANOJIT BHUYAN, T.VAIPHEI

body2015
JUDGMENT : T.Vaiphei, J. Heard Ms B. Dutta, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. AM Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. PK Roy, the learned Standing Counsel for the F.C.I. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 11.06.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6829 of 2002, without disturbing the findings of the appellate authority on the guilt of the appellant for the proved misconduct of negligence of duty of the appellant, modified the same by setting aside the penalty of recovery of Rs. 35,500/- from him while retaining the penalty of reduction in his rank from AG-II(D) to AG-III(D). We have extensively heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as the proceeding of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The appellant, while he was working as Assistant Grade-III(D), was posted at Shed No.1 of Ramnagar F.S.D., was charge sheeted for misconduct or misbehaviour in connection with transformation of the 12852 bags of sugar weighing to 71.20.600 qts of sugar into syrup at the point of killing of respective stacks during the period 1990-91. In shed No.1 of FSD, Ramnagar, the appellant was the shed In-charge at the relevant time. After the departmental enquiry was completed, he was found by the enquiry officer to be guilty of misconduct in his report dated 27.2.2002. The appellant made his representation against the findings of the said enquiry report on 6.5.2002. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, informed the appellant about his disagreement and asked him to submit his representation. 3. Dissatisfied with his representation, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service and for recovery of Rs. 35,500/- (Rupees thirty five thousand five hundred) only to be deducted from his terminal benefits. The appellant preferred an appeal against the decision of the appellate authority, which by the order dated 21.10.2003, quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement and instead awarded a penalty of imposing reduction in rank from the post of AG. II(D) to AG. III(D) at the minimum of time scale by setting aside the order of the compulsory retirement. The appellant preferred an appeal against the decision of the appellate authority, which by the order dated 21.10.2003, quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement and instead awarded a penalty of imposing reduction in rank from the post of AG. II(D) to AG. III(D) at the minimum of time scale by setting aside the order of the compulsory retirement. It was also directed that the appellant should not be posted in any of the FCI establishment at Silchar during his remaining service period in the Corporation and he should be posted in the Regional Office, Guwahati. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 6829 of 2002 before this Court, which by the impugned judgment held as follows: “6. As noted earlier, the initial punishment was that of compulsory retirement with recovery of Rs. 35500/-. However, the punishment was interfered with by the appellate authority observing that the penalty awarded to the petitioner is apparently harsh and does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct established by the enquiry officer on the articles of charges. The appellate authority has also observed that important document i.e. Monthly Technical Report has not properly been analyzed by the disciplinary authority. 7. Be that as it may, apparently, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had misappropriated or had stolen sugar from Shed No. 1nor was there any change of shortage of sugar. In other words, the charge relates to negligence in duty in not intimating his concerned authorities regarding the above fact.” 4. After hearing both the learned counsel at length, we are of the view that insofar as the finding of guilt with respect to negligence of duty on the part of the appellant is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere therewith. However, there is force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence and as such lesser punishment should be imposed in the light of the observations of the leaned Single with which we respectfully agree. The learned Senior Counsel has emphasised time and again that the appellant has retired from service as early as on 1.7.2008 and, as such, this retirement should be taken into account while modifying the penalty imposed by the respondent authority. The learned Senior Counsel has emphasised time and again that the appellant has retired from service as early as on 1.7.2008 and, as such, this retirement should be taken into account while modifying the penalty imposed by the respondent authority. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has justified the penalty imposed upon the appellant by contending that the conduct of the appellant in not properly accounting for the sugar in stacks in his custody does not warrant the interference of this Court and that the penalty as modified by the learned Single Judge is appropriate and cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. 5. Normally, if the punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer is found to be shockingly disproportionate, a Writ Court usually will set aside the punishment and remit the case to the respondent authorities for awarding a penalty lesser than the penalty already imposed upon the delinquent officer. However, in this case, the appellant has admittedly retired from service and considering also the facts that more than about 15 years have gone by since the institution of the departmental proceedings, we do not think it at this stage appropriate to remit it to the respondent authorities for modification of the penalty so imposed. 6. In the view that we have taken, we set aside the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of AG-II(D) to AG-III(D) imposed upon the appellant and the ends of justice will be met if the penalty is reduced to recovery of 35,500/-(Rupees thirty five thousand five hundred) only from the appellant. We order accordingly. The said recovery should be made from whatever benefits/entitlement is being paid to the appellant consequent upon our quashing of the penalty of reduction in rank imposed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.