WP(C) 4554/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well a s Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. This writ petition has been filed against Annexure-2 order dated 23.07.0 7 by which the petitioner was removed from service pursuant to a departmental pr oceeding. For a ready reference the said order dated 23.07.07 is quoted below: GOVT. OF ASSAM DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI :: JURIPAR:: GUWAHATI-37 OFFICE ORDER No. PDDE (II) 4/2003/133 Dated Guwahati, the 23rd July, 2007 Perused the enquiry report alongiwth the Show cause notice, statement of allegat ion and also gone through the relevant documents on record, and I am satisfied t hat all the facts and circumstances of the case have been duly considered and th e principle of natural justice has also been followed. I have accepted the findi ngs of the enquiry report in connection with the Departmental Proceeding case dr awn up against Shri Dharmendra Bordoloi submitted by the Enquiry Officer. As a part of statutory requirement at 2nd Show Cause notice was also served on h im with a copy of the enquiry report for providing him another opportunity to fi le further representation in his defence on the enquiry report if any. I have also read the proper petitions submitted by the Delinquent official Shri Dharmendra Bordoloi (U/S) Chowkidaar, Moirabari Dev. Block. Having gone through the enquiry report and after careful examination of all the facts and circumstances charges have been proved behind reasonable doubts and it has been established that the Delinquent official has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 35,557.00 for his personal gain by committing forgery and falsification of r ecords with mala fide intention. I am also satisfied that this is a fit case, where the charted official deserves major punishment. In view of serious nature of the offence and for the sake of natural justice I a m inclined to impose punishment, where penalty not less than that of removal fro m service will meet the nds of justice, which however shall not be disqualificat ion for future employment in any other establishment. As a matter of fact such a n employee can not be allowed to remain on the pay roll of the Govt. Establishme nt as because continuation of such employee in the Govt. Service will jeopardise the interest of the public. Therefore, I do hereby order that Shri Dharmendra Bordoloi, Chowkidar (U/S), Moi rabari Dev. Block the charged official be and is herby removed from the service. The subsistence allowances that Shri Dharmendra Bordoloi had enjoyed during his suspension period from 05.11.99 to 30.06.2007 shall be treated as final. By this order the Departmental Proceeding is disposed of. Director Panchayat & Rural Dev., Assam If we go by the aforesaid order of penalty, there was a departmental pro ceeding against the petitioner in which he duly participated and on conclusion o f the enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted his report to which the petitio ner also responded. However, in the writ petition the averments made are that th e petitioner was never intimated about the departmental enquiry and that he was not served with any charge sheet. According to the petitioner, he was also not p rovided with the copy of the enquiry report. Thus, what is pleaded is that the a foresaid order dated 23.07.07 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Taking note of the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, this Court by orde r dated 04.11.2010 issued direction for production of the records. Be it stated here that the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate has produced the fi le relating to departmental proceeding on perusal of which what I find is that t he plea of the petitioner that there was gross violation of the principles of na tural justice is not at all correct, rather a false statement. The petitioner w as issued with charge sheet dated 29.03.2000 in which two definite charges were brought against him. The first charge was that the petitioner while was working as Chowkidar of Moirabari Development Block, he had drawn bills from Treasury wi th forged signature of the Block Development Officer and Cashier amounting to Rs . 35,557.00. The second charge was that while the petitioner was working as Chow kidar of the said Block he had intentionally drawn bills from the Treasury with forged signature on different occasions for different nature of bills and that t he same had established his continuous effort to commit such serious offence. The petitioner duly submitted his reply to the said charge sheet. During enquiry proceeding, the petitioner admitted the charge of forging the signature of the BDO and drawing the aforesaid amount. Be it stated here that before drawing depa rtmental proceeding the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 05 .11.99. Conspicuously this aspect of the matter has not been mentioned in the wr it petition. In the statement made in the enquiry proceeding on 08.05.2000, the petit ioner admitted about forging the signature of the BDO and being guilty of drawin g an amount of Rs. 42,057/- from the Morigaon Treasury. In the statement he also stated about refund of Rs. 35,557/- with the undertaking to refund the balance amount of Rs. 6500/- The witnesses examined in the enquiry also supported the charges made ag ainst the petitioner. Although the petitioner has made statement in the writ pe tition that no enquiry was conducted and that if any enquiry was conducted, same was behind his back, but the records produced by Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Ad dl. Sr. Govt. Advocate have revealed that the petitioner duly participated in th e enquiry by submitting his attendance. Although a statement has been made in the writ petition that the petitio ner was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report, but the records have rev ealed that same was provided to the petitioner which he accepted under his clear signature. From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner has made false state ment in the writ petition which is abuse of the process of law. On that score al one the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Since the petitioner duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and adm itted his guilt, the charge against him was held to have been established pursua nt to which he was also provided with an opportunity to make representation agai nst the said enquiry report. The disciplinary authority in consideration of the entire materials on record, passed the impugned order by which the petitioner wa s removed from service. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the imp ugned order dated 23.07.07 by which the petitioner has been removed from service . The writ petition is dismissed.