W.P. (C) Nos. 2239 and 433 of 2004. Case: Silchar Municipal Board and Anr. Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Guwahati High Court

Case NumberW.P. (C) Nos. 2239 and 433 of 2004
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S. Dutta, Mr. M. Choudhury, Mr. R. Kaur, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Dutta and Mr. A. Barkataki, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Mr. M. Dutta, Mr. S. Dutta, Mr. M. Choudhury, Mr. R. Kaur and Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocates, State Counsel, Assam
JudgesTinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
IssueForeign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 54
Citation2014 (1) GLT 544
Judgement DateJanuary 03, 2014
CourtGuwahati High Court

Judgment:

Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

  1. The first writ petition directed against the refusal of the respondent authorities to release the current and past salaries of the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 20.1.2004 with the following directions:

    .......This petition is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner, Urban Development Department i.e. respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and issue appropriate direction to the concerned authority i.e. Silchar Municipal Board for payment of the arrear as well as current salaries in accordance with the appellate order dated 15th November, 2003. The Executive officer, Silchar Municipal Board is also directed to implement the order of the appellate authority within a period of six months from the day when a copy of this order is furnished.

    Interestingly, notwithstanding the disposal of the writ petition, the case came to be listed out of nowhere on 29.1.2013 when this Court passed the following order:

    28.01.2013

    Though the records of WP(C) No. 2239/2004 is with the records of this case, names of the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 2239/2004 are not reflected. Name of the counsel appearing for the respondent is also not shown in the cause list in respect of W.P.(C) No. 433/2004.

    Registry will list this case also reflecting in the cause list in WP(C) No. 2239/2004 along with the names of appearing counsel. List on 01.02.2013.

    JUDGE

    Thus, in view of the above order dated 20.1.2004, the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 433 of 2004 no longer survives for consideration.

  2. In WP(C) No. 2239 of 2004, the Silchar Municipal Board ("the Board" for short) is the petitioner and is challenging the legality of the order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner/Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Assam setting aside the order dated 12.3.2001 dismissing the delinquent/respondent No. 2 from service. According to the Board, there is a standing order issued by the Executive officer of the Board dated 11.12.96 which requires each of the collecting staff receiving donations for the Chairman's/Executive officer's Relief Fund to maintain a Register to record the date and reference of the deposits etc., and produce the Register before the Executive officer through the Head Assistant once in a week. The Standing Order also requires the Head Assistant to report the total fund position to the Executive officer from time to time and no donation should be received without issue of money receipt to the donor. The collecting staff is also required to preserve payment vouchers properly for internal audit to be conducted every year and should not involve themselves in the payment of bills and proposals.

  3. According to the Board, from para 5 of the audit report submitted by the Auditor on 16.3.2000, for the period commencing from 29.10.1998 to 29.2.2000, it was stated therein that the practice adopted so far for receiving donation is that the donation to the Chairman's Relief Fund is accepted in the branches, namely, Tax Branch, License Branch, Water Supply Branch and Market Branch whereafter the dealing assistant over handed the daily amount so collected under proper receipt to the Tax Daroga who receives the amount handed over to him by putting his signature in the Collection Register of the Branch against such receipt. The Tax Daroga thereafter records these receipts in the Interim Register called Daily Collection Register and the total collection of the day is remitted to the Bank the next day. However, the Auditor during the audit observed deviations and a net amount of Rs. 2,23,324.20p had not been taken into account from the daily Collection register of the branches to the Daily Collection Register of Tax Daroga or remitted to the Bank, but the same was retained by the delinquent. This prompted the Board to place the delinquent under suspension with effect from 22.3.2000. This was followed by a departmental enquiry against the delinquent, who was ultimately charge-sheeted on 10.7.2000 by the Chairman of the Board, who had acted as both the Enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority.

  4. The case of the petitioner-Board is that the delinquent was charged with (i) not maintaining the relevant records of Accounts like Collection Register, Cash Book, etc. for the period from 29.4.1998 to 29.2.2000 thereby intentionally violating all office procedures/orders and Municipal Accounts Rules, which he had admitted in his note dated 18.2.2000, (ii) of not maintaining Stock register of Receipt Books of Chairman's Relief Fund of Silchar Municipal Board, etc., (iii) of not remitting to Bank Account a sum of Rs. 2,27,446.20p being a part of the Municipal revenue received and collected during the period from 29.4.1998 to 29.2.2000 against the Chairman's Relief Fund of Silchar Municipal Board, which he had admitted in his notes dated 18.2.2000 and dated 21.2.2000 by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- on instalment out of the total amount of Rs. 2,27,446.20 after detection, thereby misappropriating public money and (iv) of not handing over to his successor the inner-foils of the receipts bearing No. 4901-5000 from Book No. 50(Old Stock) during he period from 29.4.1998 to 29.2.2000. As noted earlier, the Enquiry officer, who also acted as the disciplinary officer, found the delinquent guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The enquiry report was submitted by him on 7.3.2001, and was communicated to the delinquent. The enquiry officer found the delinquent guilty of all the charge levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, however, gave an opportunity to the delinquent to submit his explanation as to why punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted upon him within three days of the receipt of the enquiry report. According to the Board, the delinquent in his show cause complained many irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings. However, dissatisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority issued the order dated 12.3.2001 imposing a penalty of dismissal from service and for recovery of the dues of the Board from him. On appeal by the delinquent, the appellate authority by the impugned...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT