WP(C) 7676/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. H.N. SARMA The subject matter of challenge in this Writ petition is an order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Chairman Rubber Board, the respondent, by which the pet itioner was inflicted with the punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stag e from Rs. 3,425/- to Rs. 3,050.00 as was applicable to the Jr. Assistant at that time, on the basis of the enquiry report, wherein the cha rges of misconduct levelled against him were found to be proved. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner an d Mr. B. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner entered into service under the respondent Rubber Board in the year 1991 as Jr. Assistant and was posted at the Regional Office, J orhat. While the petitioner was rendering his service, he was placed under suspe nsion on 22.5.98 in contemplation of drawal of a disciplinary proceeding on the ground of alleged disorderly behaviour in the office and assault of his superior officer as well as for subverting discipline in the office. The aforesaid suspe nsion order was followed by memo of charge sheet dated 15.10.98 leveling the fo llowing charges against the petitioner - 1) The incumbent disrupted the peaceful functioning of the Regional Office, J orhat on 1-5-98 by shouting and using abusive and threatening langua ge during office hours in the office against his superiors ; 2) took the table and chair allotted to him from his room to the office room of Asst. Section Officer and exhibited a conduct of insubordination ; 3) instead of keeping the file/papers and records of the Board in the proper pla ce, resorted to litter the same on the floor and exhibited a conduct subversive of discipline, dignity and decorum expected from him as an employee of the Board , and 4) in connivance with Shri Badan Chandra Kachari, Peon/Watcher of the Regional O ffice, Jorhat manhandled Shri P. Yesodharan, Development Officer of the Regional Office, Jorhat by giving severe punches on his head and face, in front of other staff and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Board. 4. Alongwith the charge memo list of documents and witnesses sought to be relied on by the department were also furnished. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 1.2.98 denying the allegations levelled aga inst him. The reply furnished by the petitioner by way of defence statement havi ng failed to evoke positive impact from the disciplinary authority, they proceed ed to hold a departmental enquiry and accordingly an inquiry officer was appoint ed. 5. During the course of inquiry as many as five witnesses on behalf of the department were examined and the petitioner also examined three witnesse s in support of his defence version. The inquiry officer after completion of the enquiry submitted his report on 31.10.2000 holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the disciplinary authority an d the disciplinary authority, who is the Chairman of the Board, found that all t he charges levelled against the petitioner having been proved during enquiry, in flicted punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage from Rs. 3,425.00 to Rs. 3050.00 per month. 6. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal against the afores aid order of punishment which was rejected by the authority vide order dated 3.1 .02 holding that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is proportion ate to the level of acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitione r and consequently did not interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary a uthority. Challenging the impugned order of punishment dated 20.3.2001 as well a s the appellate order dated 3.6.02, rejecting the departmental appeal, the petit ioner has filed this Writ Petition. 7. Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that th e department having failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner during the enquiry, inquiry officer committed grave error in law and facts and i n holding all the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Both the di sciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority having failed to rectify the aforesaid lacuna and defect committed by the inquiry officer, the respectiv e orders of punishment as well as dismissal of the appeal are also bad in law. M r. B.D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Board however submits that the c harges levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the charge s having been proved no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned or der. 8. The submissions of the learned counsel led me to meticulously go through the materials available on record including the report of the inquiry officer. On the face of it, amongst the charges framed against the petitioner, t he charge No. 4 is the very serious one whereas other three charges are not as m uch as serious as charge like that of charge No. 4. 9. Accordingly I deem it proper to consider in the first hand to se e as to how far the department has been able to prove the charge No. 4 levelled against the petitioner. While discussing the charge No. 4 the inquiry officer did not ac cept the version of the management that the petitioner in connivance with one Ba dan Ch. Kachari, peon/watcher of the Regional Office, Jorhat manhandled the Deve lopment Officer Sri P. Yesodharan by giving severe punches on his head and face in front of other staff. The inquiry officer also found from the deposition of S W 1 that the petitioner alongwith Badan Ch. Kachari planned to attempt murder Sr i P. Yesodharan, Development Officer of the Regional Office, Jorhat. It is the f urther finding of the Enquiry Officer that SW 2 in his statement Ext- 5 had not reported that the petitioner did not hit Sri P. Yesodharan, but when Yesodharan asked the petitioner about his misconduct of throwing the office files/records a t that time, some argument took place between the two and hearing such arguments the other delinquent viz. Badan Ch. Kachari came to the room where Mr. Yesodhar an and the petitioner were speaking to each other. The inquiry officer ultimatel y did not find that involvement of the petitioner in attacking Sri Yeshodharan i n spite of such findings, the inquiry officer found that the charge No. 4 levell ed against the petitioner has been proved. The enquiry officer himself also held that none of the witnesses has witnessed the petitioner to have committed the a cts as indicated in charge no 4. 10. Meticulous analysis of the finding on charge No. 4 would go to s how that the charge No. 4 was not at all proved during the course of inquiry aga inst the petitioner and there is no evidence on record to hold the said charge a s proved. As indicated above the charge No. 4 which relates to manhandling of P. Yasodharan the Development Officer is a serious charge and the same could not b e proved by any iota of evidence. 11. In view of the above discussions, the finding of the inquiry off icer on charge No. 4 holding the same as proved cannot stand. The disciplinary a uthority before whom the matter was placed has proceeded to inflict punishment o n the basis that all the charges including the charge No. 4 leveled against the petitioner have been duly proved during inquiry. The disciplinary authority on c areful consideration of the inquiry report alongwith the evidence on record held that the conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer is not wrong. On such finding the disciplinary authority further held that considering the grave nature of the proved charges the petitioner should get deterrent punishment and accordingly h e was awarded punishment as indicated above. 12. Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly subm itted that in the event the finding on charge No. 4 falls through, the order of punishment of reduction of pay scale of the petitioner to the lowest stage may n ot be permissible. 13. The impugned order of imposition of penalty passed by the discip linary authority, though is a speaking order, I find that the disciplinary autho rity missed on certain vital aspect of the matter to consider in passing the imp ugned order. It appears that the disciplinary authority acted on the ultimate fi nding of the inquiry officer as reflected in his report to the extent that all t he charges leveled against the petitioner including the charge No. 4 have been p roved. But from the materials placed on record it amply demonstrates that the ch arge No. 4 was not at all proved as held above. The disciplinary authority proce eded to punish the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner was involved in t he commission of such offence going to the extent of manhandling the higher offi cer. Accordingly on the failure of the management to prove charge No. 4 the puni shment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained and Mr. Das fairly agrees to this situation. Accordingly the punishment imposed upon the petitioner fixin g his pay scale at the lowest stage from 3,425.00 to Rs. 3050.00 cannot stand an d accordingly the same stands set aside and quashed. 14. Upon perusal of the charge Nos. 2 and 3 it would disclose that t hose are the charges not very serious one which can be adequately termed as mino r charges. 15. Taking note of the facts and circumstances and the situation inv olved in the case and in view of the above discussions and findings, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for considering the nature of pen alties that may be inflicted upon the petitioner for commission as against the c harge no. 1, 2 & 3, which prima facie attracts minor penalties. This shall be d one within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 16. In view of the quashing of the punishment inflicted upon the pet itioner, all necessary consequential benefits shall be provided to the petitione r by the authority, subject to minor punishment if any, that may be inflicted fo r the allegation levelled in charge no. 1, 2 & 3. 17. In the result this Writ petition stands allowed to the extent in dicated above.