WP(C) 7655/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University for the respond ents. Also considered entire materials on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-6 order dated 30.11.1998, b y which, he was imposed with the penalty of Compulsory Retirement from service w .e.f. 30.11.1998. The order so passed, was pursuant to a departmental proceedin g. At the time of such Compulsory Retirement, the petitioner was serving as Depu ty Comptroller in the office of the Comptroller, Assam Agricultural University. It will be pertinent to mention here that had the petitioner been not imposed wi th the penalty of Compulsory Retirement w.e.f. 30.11.1998, he would have continu ed in service for another 3 (three) months, as his normal retirement on attainin g the age of superannuation was 20.2.1999. 3. The charge against the petitioner, as was levelled by the Annexure-2 sho w cause notice dated 14.6.1996 were as follows :- 1. That, while you were holding the post of Accounts Officer in the office of the Comptroller, A.A.U., Jorhat and were in-charge of the Establishment Branc h of the said office, you have by your own action and gross negligence of duties , contributed towards mis-appropriation of an amount of Rs.40,288/- (Rupees fort y thousand two hundred eighty eight) from the Group Insurance Scheme. You are, t herefore, charged with the first offence of misconduct for gross negligence of d uties which resulted in misappropriation of University money. 2. That, while you were holding the post of Accounts Officer in the office of the Comptroller, A.A.U. Jorhat and serving as the Drawing and Disbursing Offi cer of Group Insurance Scheme, you did not take timely action to invest a huge a mount of Group Insurance fund accumulated and lying idle in Bank. The non-invest ment of the accumulated amount in a proper way resulted in a huge revenue loss t o the University. You are, therefore, charged with the second offence of miscond uct for gross negligence of duties resulting in considerable loss to the Univers ity. 4. Along with the said charge-sheet, the petitioner was furnished with the statement of allegation by way of explaining the charges, which speaks of forge ry of documents with ulterior motive of frauding the University, as a consequenc e of which, the University suffered financial loss. 5. With the issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No.876/1998, in which, it was alleged that the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity of being heard by wa y of submission of defence statement in absence of required documents. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 holding that t here was no material to show that there was denial on the part of the disciplin ary authority to furnish required documents and that the petitioner had asked fo r any specific documents. However, referring to the statements made in the writ petition regarding non-furnishing of documents, it was observed that the authori ty in the University would consider the said point and proceeded accordingly. It was also provided that on conclusion of the enquiry proceeding and in the event of passing any order of penalty, it would be open for the petitioner to move ap propriate authority for redressal of the grievance. 6. After the aforesaid disposal of the writ petition, the enquiry proceedin g against the petitioner had proceeded with the eventual submission of the enqui ry report by the enquiring authority, copy of which was furnished to the petitio ner enabling him to make representation. It will be pertinent to mention here th at in spite of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner declined to par ticipate in the enquiry proceeding. No reason has been assigned in the writ peti tion as to why the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding. Situated th us, the enquiring authority had no other alternative than to proceed ex parte wi th eventual furnishing of the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. 7. It appears that the petitioner had responded to the second show cause no tice issued before imposition of the penalty on 30.11.1998. In his reply to the second show cause notice dated 20.8.1998, the petitioner tried to deal with the charge levelled against him stating that the same were not tenable in law. Howev er, nothing was stated as to why he did not participate in the enquiry proceedin g. 8. After the aforesaid development, the disciplinary authority passed the i mpugned order dated 30.11.1998 imposing the penalty of Compulsory Retirement fro m service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made departmental appeal, which was a lso disposed by Annexure-10 order dated 1.10.2002, in which, it was stated about non-participation of the petitioner in the enquiry proceeding. The appeal bein g disposed of in the negative, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in the year 2002. Now, after about 9 (nine) years, it has come up for hearing. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, it was highly esse ntial to furnish him with the required documents, on the basis of which, the cha rges were framed. This aspect of the matter need not detain us inasmuch as in t he earlier round of proceeding, the petitioner was provided with the liberty to get the records inspected or to get the required documents. However, he did not do anything of the sort and rather, did not participate in the enquiry proceedin g. 10. The charge against the petitioner being that of forgery of documents wit h fraudulent intention and eventual financial loss to the University, the matter cannot be viewed leniently. However, the disciplinary authority considering the fact that the retirement of the petitioner was fast approaching and he was left with three months’ service, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with e ffect from 30.11.1998 and thus, virtually, there was no financial loss to the pe titioner except the salary for three months. 11. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner and method, in whi ch the petitioner had conducted himself in the same in the enquiry proceeding an d in absence of procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismiss ed.