STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 118 days is condoned.

(2.) Special leave granted.

(3.) While the respondent was working as Manager of Orissa State Guest House at Bhubneshwar, the Government Audit Department audited the account for the periods from 1984-85 to 1990-91 and noted serious financial irregularities, fabrication of records and vouchers and misapropriation to the tune of Rs. 163.59 lakhs. It suggested further probe into certain items of expenditure which according to the Audit Report are highly suspicious and dubious in nature. The respondent was transfered on January 14, 1993 to the Secretariat and was kept in charge of Recovery Cell. Thereafter certain other financial irregularities relating to purchase of woollen carpets etc. apart from suppression of audit objections had come to light. There were audit reports for the years 1978-79 to 1980-81 also which appear to have pointed out similar objections. The appointing authority considered the record and found necessary to take disciplinary proceedings for those financial irregularities and mis-appropriation committed during that period and action was in contemplation against respondent. On March 17, 1993 they passed an order directing an enquiry into the irregularities and also decided to keep him under suspension pending further action. Anticipating this action, the respondent attempted to pre-empt it and laid O.A. No. 396 of 1993 in the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubneshwar and prayed to quash Government Memorandums dated 14-1-1993 and 11-2-1993 and also filed an application for ad interim injunction. Hardly the ink on the order of suspension dried on the paper, the Tribunal on the same day, namely, March 17, 1993 directed not to suspend the respondent and also directed the standing counsel to obtain instructions of the need to suspend the respondent. Subsequently, the appellant received information that the respondent was In possession of disproportionate assets to the known lawful sources and directed the vigilance to conduct an investigation. On Sept. 3, 1993, the vigilance conducted a raid on the house of the respondent and found him to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 11.44 lakhs. Accordingly, the crime was registered in Crime No. 46 under Section 3(2) read with Section 13(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 and further investigation was on. On consideration of the material, the Government by order dated Sept. 28, 1993 suspended the respondent from service. It was an independent cause of action which has nothing to do with first order and there is no need to obtain any prior permission from the Tribunal and the rules do not require to obtain such a permission. It is the case of the appellant that yet it sought permission from the Tribunal but no order was made. It sought to serve the order of suspension on the respondent on Sept. 28, 1993 and Sept. 29, 1993; but the respondent avoided the receipt of it. So it was sent by registered post to the residential address, as well as personally served on the respondent by the under Secretary at 4.00 p.m. on Sept. 30, 1993, Immediately, the Tribunal suspended the order on the same day, namely, on Sept. 30, 1993 in M.P. No. 2493/93 (arising out of O.A. No. 1594/93) and obviously after 4 p.m. In the first order, though the Tribunal directed to obtain prior permission before passing any suspension order and despite filing of application for permission, without disposing of the same, the matter was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately the cases were posted for final disposal. Thus, these appeals by special leave.