Quashed

Rupram Das v. the Chairman, Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC21 Dec 2022WP(C)/6781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside a direction issued by the Khadi & Village Industries Board requiring the petitioner to deposit alleged misappropriated money and interest. The Court held that such recovery, a major penalty, warrants an enquiry under the 1964 Rules before imposition.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 25.02.2021 ordering the petitioner to deposit the amount and interest was set aside.

Rupram Das Vs the Chairman, Assam Khadi and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010018772022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6781/2021

¶5

RUPRAM DAS S/O LATE KANTA DAS

¶6

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUNGAJAN PO HARIYAMUKH PS RAHA DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782103

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND 2 ORS CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003

¶9

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶10

ASSAM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 3:THE INCHARGE AUDIT

¶11

ASSAM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 -----------Advocate for : MR. S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : SC ASSAM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD appearing for THE CHAIRMAN

¶12

ASSAM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND 2 ORS

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 21.12.2022

¶17

Heard Mr. M. R. Sodial, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Munir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶18

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 25.02.2021 whereby the Chief Executive Officer, Khadi & Village Industries Board had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,02,682/- at the Central Store account and interest at the Head Quarter account of the Board within 15 days from the issue of the said order.

¶19

It was further mentioned that the entire amount which have been said to be misappropriated along with interest at the rate 18 % would be otherwise recovered from the C. P. F. final withdrawal benefit of the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 submits that in terms with the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules of 1964’) recovery as has been sought for against the petitioner falls within the ambit of Rule 7 (iii) and the same cannot be done unless and until, there is an enquiry conducted in terms of the Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964. He therefore, submits that the respondent authorities would not like to insist upon the said impugned communication dated 25.02.2021 and instead shall act upon in terms with Rule 9 of the Rule of 1964 and thereupon do the needful in that regard.

¶21

In view of the categorical submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and also taking into account that the impugned order amounts to a major penalty within the meaning of Rule 7 (iii) of the Rules of 1964, and the same cannot be imposed without an enquiry in terms with the Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, this Court sets aside the impugned communication dated 25.02.2021 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Assam Khadi & Village Industries Board.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

The setting aside of the said communication dated 25.02.2021 shall not preclude the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to take action, as provided under the Rules of 1964. With the above, the petition stands disposed.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Rupram Das v. the Chairman, Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupram Das v. the Chairman, Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Jamini Devee Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Indramani Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rajibul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rupram Das Vs the Chairman, Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board and 3 Ors.

Smti Juri Kalita Duwarah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prakash Jyoti Borah and 23 Ors. . Vs Shyam Jaganathan and 3 Ors. .