Rekibuddin Bora Vs the Assam State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

THE ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND ANR REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMARBATI PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI 781005, KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶11

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

THE ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AMARBATI PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI 781005 KAMRUP M ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR,

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. T C CHUTIA, ADDL. SR. GA, MR. B D CHOWDHURY (R1,2),MR. R SEKHAR(R-1,2)

¶15

Page No.# 2/8

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 16.07.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D.

¶21

Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Sekhar, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing an order dated 12.09.2019, passed by the Managing Director, Assam, Warehousing Corporation, imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of withholding of 01 (one) annual increment without cumulative effect along with certain further stipulations on conclusion of a Departmental proceeding instituted against him.

¶23

3. The petitioner, who was, at the relevant point of time, engaged as a Warehouse Manager, at the Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Hojai Centre, on account of a fire incident occasioning in the said warehouse, Hojai, came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 18-07-2017.

¶24

Thereafter, a Departmental Proceeding was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 14-09-2017. In the said show-cause notice, 05(five) charges came to be framed against the

¶25

Page No.# 3/8

¶26

petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause

¶27

notice, denying the charges framed against him.

¶28

Being not satisfied with the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was directed to be held in the matter and accordingly, a Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be appointed.

¶29

The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of his enquiry, proceeded to submit his Enquiry Report on 14-01-2019 and therein, held that the Charges Nos.1 and 3, framed against the petitioner were established while the charges Nos.2, 4 and 5 could not be established for lack of proper and convincing evidence. A copy of the said Enquiry Report was forwarded to the petitioner on 14-01-2019. The petitioner submitted his representation on 25-01-2019 against the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the said Enquiry Report.

¶30

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, upon appreciating the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report and the representation submitted in the matter by the petitioner, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner a penalty of withholding of 1 (one) increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner was warned not to repeat such mistake in future. Further, in the said order, it was stipulated that in case of any claim made by the depositor in future, the same would be liable to

¶31

Page No.# 4/8

¶32

be recovered from the petitioner.

¶33

The petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by way of instituting the present writ petition.

¶34

4. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, at the outset by referring to the penalties imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 12-09-2019, has submitted that the petitioner would not be pressing the challenge in the present writ petition in so far as the imposition of the penalty of withholding of 1 (one) annual increment without cumulative effect as well as the warning issued to him. Mr. Borthakur, submits that the challenge in the present writ petition is limited to the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner by which it was stipulated that in case of any claim made by any depositor in future, the amount involved would be liable to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶35

5. Mr. S. Borthakur, submits that the Regulation 44 of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, prescribes the penalty permissible to be so imposed upon a delinquent on conclusion of a Departmental proceeding instituted against him. He submits that penalty of the nature of effecting any future recovery from the delinquent is not found to be prescribed. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur submits that the Disciplinary Authority in stipulating in the order dated 12-09-2019 that recoveries would be permissible to be made from the petitioner in case of

¶36

Page No.# 5/8

¶37

any future claim being made by a depositor in the matter, exceeded his jurisdiction.

¶38

6. Per contra, Mr. R. Shekhar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that admittedly the penalty now under challenge in the present petition as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 12-09-2019, is not a prescribed penalty under the provisions of Regulation 44 of the Regulations of 1989. He submits that the allegation against the petitioner is with regard to the lack of supervision on his part, which had led to a fire incident occasioning in the warehouse, in question. There being materials stored, therein, of various depositors, which were destroyed in the said fire incident, it was stipulated that, in the event of any future claim being raised by any of the depositor and the Corporation is required to process such claim, the amount involved would be liable to be so recovered from the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, he submits that the said stipulation as made in the order dated 12-09-2019 would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶39

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶40

8. The challenge in the present writ petition being to the penalties imposed upon the petitioner vide an order dated 12-09-2019, the operative portion of the said order being relevant, the same is extracted,

¶41

Page No.# 6/8

¶42

hereinbelow;

¶43

“So, being the Disciplinary Authority under the Regulation 43 of ASWC (staff) Regulation, 1989, I hereby Order the following penalties upon the Charged Officer Md. Rekibuddin Bora, Warehouse Manager, Gr.-II (u/s), ASWC, Hojai Centre as prescribed under Regulation 44(i) of the aforementioned Staff Regulations.

¶44

Withholding of 1 (one) Annual Increment without cumulative effect.

¶45

He is warned not to repeat such mistake in future.

¶46

In case of any claims made by the depositor in future, the same is liable to be recovered from him.”

¶47

9. In view of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner would not be pressing the challenge to penalties No.1 and 2 as imposed upon him, vide the order dated 12-092019, this Court is restricting the consideration in the present order only to the penalty no.3, above as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 12-09-2019.

¶48

10. The penalties permissible to be imposed upon a delinquent is set out in the provisions of Regulation 44 of the said Regulations of 1989.

¶49

11. This Court on a perusal of the penalties so permissible to be imposed upon an employee of the Corporation, on conclusion of a Departmental proceeding instituted against him, does not find any penalty

¶50

to have been prescribed, therein, of the nature, as has now been imposed upon the petitioner vide serial no.3 above, of the order dated 12-09-2019

¶51

(extracted hereinabove).

¶52

12. This Court on a perusal of the Enquiry Report does not find that

¶53

Page No.# 7/8

¶54

in the enquiry any materials were led for quantification of the loss occasioning to the Corporation on account of the fire incident involved. Further, the Enquiry Officer in his report has also not quantified any amount which would be permissible to be recovered from the petitioner, herein.

¶55

13. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner by serial no.3 of the order dated 12-09-2019, was with a view to protect the interest of the Corporation in the event of any future claim, is so made by any of the depositors who had stored their respective goods in the said warehouse which were destroyed in the fire incident occasioning, therein. The said penalty not being a prescribed penalty, it was not permissible for the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to impose the same upon the petitioner vide the order dated 12-09-2019. It is to be noted that in the event, if there was any proceeding and/or application submitted by any of the depositors claiming compensation for the loss of their goods on account of the said fire incident and the corporation was required to pay the amount so claimed, it was always open to the Respondent Corporation to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of such amount from him after establishing that the petitioner was solely

¶56

Page No.# 8/8

¶57

responsible for the loss of goods occasioning on account of the said fire incident. However, in the facts and circumstances involved in the present matter, no such penalty was permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 12-09-2019.

¶58

14. In view of the above conclusions, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide Serial No.3 of the order dated 12-09-2019 (extracted hereinabove) in the considered view of this Court cannot be sustained and accordingly the penalty at Serial No.3 of the order dated 12-09-2019, stands set aside. However, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide Serial Nos.1 and 2 of the order dated 12-09-2019, are not interfered with and the same stand affirmed.

¶59

15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Comparing Assistant

Rekibuddin Bora v. the Assam State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekibuddin Bora v. the Assam State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pabin Ch. Boro Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bilal Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Bupen Brahma Alias Bhupen Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Nayanjyoti Deka Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Abdul Salam Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Deepak Thapa Vs the State of Assam and Ors.