criminal proceeding was likely to be initiated against the petitioner. However, no such criminal case has been registered. The impugned communication dated 02.11.2017 provides that the petitioner had been graded ‘E’ as per the result of review of performance appraisal of the DPMU staff for 2015-2016 by the Mission Director, NHM, Assam. However, from the stand taken by the respondent no. 6 in the counteraffidavit filed on 19.03.2019, it is stated at pargraph 12 of the said affidavit that the self appraisal was not submitted to the District Health Society, Bongaigaon as there was an FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, the grading of ‘E’ appears to had been given to the petitioner without his participation or without being called for an interview. The petitioner no doubt was a contract employee but his appointment/engagement along with other similarly situated persons was renewed or extended from time to time based on the assessment made on the performance appraisal and the details of which were apparently presented by the employees themselves. However, the petitioner as already noted hereinabove, on the basis of an FIR being filed against him, he was temporarily discontinued from his service and subsequently released from service. It may further be seen that from the letter dated 27.10.2016 written by the SDM & HO, Shrijangram, BPHC to the Director of Joint Services, Bongaigaon, the excess amount of payment of ASHA incentives under Shrijangram, Block PHE had occurred because of the documents of ASHA being forwarded by Block Accounts Manager of Shrijangram, BHPC, Sectoral MO, ABPM, ANM and ASHA Supervisors. It therefore appears that the petitioner as Block Accounts Manager alone could not have been singled out for the excess payment since there appears to be a series of process for preparing the incentives payable. The Apex Court in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and Others (supra) in the given facts of this case held that if some irregularity was found, the same cannot be made the liability of an individual alone and such liability would have to be shared by all those responsibilities and who are part of the group or committee. In the present case as well, no material has been placed before this Court to show that all those found responsible by the excessive payment of the incentives had been proceeded against.
