in the said department. Moreover, it is submitted that the State respondents have not produced any material on record to deny the statement made by the petitioner that no departmental or criminal investigation were initiated against the remaining two Govt. employees named in the said report. By referring to reply dated 05.02.2013, submitted by the Director of Pension before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, P&PG Deptt., it was stated that the Pension case in question was received by the DIS on 13.10.2011 and finalized on 03.09.2012 and that the case was not finalized immediately. It was also stated that the family pension proposal was supported with all requisite documents and there was no doubt about genuineness of the pension case. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner heavily relies on the Enquiry Report on allegation of charges against the petitioner, wherein it was mentioned that the objection raised by the petitioner on pay entry of RoP 1990 was corroborated by the note-sheet of file marked as Ext.1 and accordingly, the finding was to the effect that “Charge No.1 and 2 are only partly established i.e. only his lack of responsibility, ignorance of Govt. Rules & Procedures is indicated while processing the alleged fake family pension cases.” It is also recorded that 2 more objections were raised by F&AO, but as supporting documents were available, the pension was settled in the Directorate of Pension. The finding No.2 (sic. 2 ought to have been Charge No.3) is to the effect that “… As seen from the statement and other relevant documents submitted as Ext.2, 3, 4 & 5, the Director of Pension finalized old pension cases without raising any objection since the Directorate also had to clear all arrear pension and family pension cases as long back as 1975 i.e. since the Assam Elementary Education Provincialisation Act, came into force. So, the processing of the fake family pension case of 22 years long appears to have been done without thorough examination of the case. Charge No.4 was held not established. As against Charge No.5, it was held that the charge was partly established by holding that the petitioner should have pointed out the delay in submission of fake family pension cases and that the said action on his part indicates lack of responsibility and lack of probity. But, it was also held that Ext.2, 3, 4 and 5 indicates that such cases were actually processed and it was further held that the underlying fact was that there was no established procedure while disposing old pension/ family pension cases and there appears to be no adherence to the existing Rules and Procedures as laid down in the Assam Service (Pension) Rules 1969. The learned senior counsel has laid stress in respect of the finding recorded to the effect that being the final
