WP(C) 2745/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State counsel. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.04.2007 by which he has been imposed with the penalty of stoppage of th ree increments with cumulative effect. As regards the period of suspension he ha d undergone, it was stated in the order that the same would be adjusted from the leave account. Various grounds have been urged in the writ petition towards assailing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, he was not given excess to the relied upon documents and that there was also violation of the order dated 14.05 .2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1676/2007 by which a direction was iss ued to furnish the petitioner with the copy of the statement made by one Shri Mi chika Pator and thereafter to allow him to file additional written statement. In the order it was also provided that after that the departmental proceeding shou ld be completed within a period of four months. The charge against the petitioner as was levelled by memorandum of charg e sheet dated 26.08.2003 are as follows: Charge No. 1: That while you were an Accountant of the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, Bamunigaon it was your sacred duty to loo k after all the related account matters of the Divisional in addition to timely compilation of the monthly account of the Division. As a responsible dealing ass istant of the Division, it was your sacred duty to attend the Treasury monthly a nd to reconcile the revenue deposition record of the Division with the record of the Treasury. Due to you wilful negligence to duty and lack of your initiative for reconciliation of with Treasury Schedule /Bank Scroll a large amount of Govt . revenue amounting to Rs. 27,40,753.00 which was shown to be deposited by the m iscreants under cover of forged challan left un-detected. You are therefore, charged with wilful negligence to Govt. duty. Charge No. 2: Connivance in illegalities and breach of trust. That while you were an Accountant of the office of te Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division a forgery in depositing Govt. revenue was detected and one Shri Michika Pator, Office Peon of the same office was placed under sus pension for alleged involvement in forgery of transit challans. In the statement given by Shri Michika Pator, recorded by Shri Phani Das , UDA in presence of the DFO, Kamrup West Division, Bamunigaon it was stated tha t you had taken an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- on two different dates from Shri Michika Pator in connection with the above forgery and thus enquired the unlawful act and convicted your self in the said forgery for personal gain. You are therefore charged with connivance in forgery for personal gain a nd branch of trust. It was in response to the said charge sheet, the petitioner wanted to in spect the documents. According to him the documents were not furnished to him. H owever, he had submitted his written statement without any prejudice to his case . When the matter was not finalised by providing him necessary documents, the pe titioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1633/2004 which was dis posed of by order dated 11.03.2004 directing the respondents to pass necessary o rder to furnish the documents enabling him to make the defence in the proceeding . It was after the aforesaid order the petitioner had once again approach ed this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1676/2007 in which the aforesaid order dated 14.05.2007 was passed. After getting the copy of the order dated 14.05.2007, the petitioner wa s to submit his additional written statement and thereafter the proceeding was t o continue. Even before that the impugned order dated 26.04.2007 was passed impo sing the aforesaid penalty with stoppage of three increments with cumulative eff ect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being gross violat ion of the principle of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned State counsel referring to the records, submit s that the petitioner having been provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard, the order of penalty is not required to be interfered with. Admittedly after the aforesaid order dated 14.05.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1676/2007 further proceeding was drawn and the petitioner was not given with the opportunity to submit his additional written statement. The penalty was imp osed on 26.04.2007 and that too, without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner enabling him to make representation. On perusal of the records what I found is that the enquiry officer exone rated the petitioner from the Charge No. 2 and in a sense from the Charge No. 1 also. As regards the Charge No. 2, it was found that the main accused Shri Michi ka Pator in his statement did not name any other staff of the office including t he petitioner. So far as the Charge No. 1 is concerned, it was found that the ju risdictional DFO did not insist for reconciliation of the revenue deposition sta tement with the relevant records for a long time. In such a situation, the petit ioner did not have opportunity to reconcile the revenue deposition statement wit h the relevant records. As admitted in the enquiry report, he was not apprised o f such a procedure. In respect of the above, the enquiry officer found the petitioner neglig ent to his duty as the Charge No. 1 is concerned. However, he had recommended f or exoneration of the petitioner from the Charge with minor punishment in the fo rm of warning or in other penalty as would be appropriate in the case. It was pursuant to the said enquiry the petitioner was imposed with stop page of three increments which according to the learned counsel for the petition er amounts to major penalty. When the particular direction of this Court as referred to above was not complied with coupled with the fact that the petitioner was not provided with r easonable opportunity of being heard by way of making representation against the enquiry report and coupled with the fact that the Charge No. 2 was not establis hed, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of penalty is liable to be interfered with. As regards the Charge No. 1, although it was observed th at there was some amount of negligence on the part of the petitioner, but at the same time it was also observed that there was no direction to perform the parti cular duty from the jurisdictional DFO. Considering the matter in its entirety, I am inclined to accept the writ petition setting aside and quashing the impugned order. Consequently the petiti oner will be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit pertai ning to the period of suspension which shall be treated as on duty for all purpo se. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petit ioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2009. If that be so, the respondents shall take consequential action in t erms of the judgment and order as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, no t later than 30.11.2011.