The seized bags containing sugar and salt respectively to the prescribed destination arrived with a shortage of 10Kg and this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI, in the matter Bibekeswar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors [WPA 18451 of 2003].
The petitioner has filed the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the alleged illegal and arbitrary order of dismissal dated 13th July 1998. But it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that before the filing of the instant writ petition, the petitioner filed [W.P.15136(W) of 1998] against the respondents with the similar relief and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th June 2002, The order was passed as follows:
It was mentioned that at the reaching point there had been a shortage of 10 KG of sugar and 50 KG of salt for which the writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally and was subsequently dismissed from service. On perusal of the evidence, it appears that when the bags were loaded on the Matador Van which was directed to be escorted by the delinquent no weighment was done. Hence, it was not logically possible to conclude that there had been a shortage of definite quantity.
It was also alleged that the delinquent confessed to his superior that while in transit he distributed sugar and salt amongst the villagers. However, the said statement was denied by 2 the petitioner. Also, the court went through the records of the case of S.K.Srinivasan vs. Union of India reported in [AIR 1958 SC 419].
The order which was placed by the appellate authority dated 14th February 2001 was thus quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal afresh upon allowing personal hearing to the writ petitioner through his authorized representative and also directed to examine the evidence in the light of the observation made herein and in any event he is directed to impose a lighter punishment having regard to the above special facts without removing the writ petitioner from service.
The appellate authority was also considering the question of payment of back wages to the petitioner. They also mentioned that the entire process of consideration, hearing etc should be finished within 8 weeks from the date of communication of his order.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that – Later the writ petition is thus disposed of, After hearing the order passed the Appellate Authority heard the matter once again and passed an order allowing reinstatement of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to report the unit for his reinstatement. Because of such circumstances, the instant writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, the same was disposed of.
