D D SURJ Vs. A K BARREN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal by special leave is Shri D. D. Suri - an erst-while member of the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of the State of Orissa, Shri A. K. Barren, I.A.S. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa at the relevant time was impleaded as respondent No. 1. He died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, his name is directed to be expunged. For the sake of convenience, however, he will be referred to hereinafter in this judgment as respondent No. 1. Shri S. K. Ghosh, I.P.S. respondent No. 2 was at the relevant time Director of Vigilance and Additional Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Police and Services Department. He has since retired and no notice of this appeal could be served on him. Even so the appeal proceeded to hearing as for the disposal of this appeal, his appearance was not necessary. The State of Orissa is respondent No. 3, and the Government of India is respondent Number 4. Respondents 5 and 7 are other officers of the Government of Orissa.

(2.) It is an unfortunate protracted litigation with a chequered history. Yet we do not find it possible to bring it to conclusion by our judgment.

(3.) The appellant was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service and joined as an Additional District Magistrate in the State of Orissa in November, 1950. According to his case due to some actions which he took against some big political persons, he incurred their displeasure in the year 1952. Sometime after, he came on deputation to the center but went back to Orissa in April, 1965. At the relevant time in the year 1967 he was serving as Commissioner of Land Reforms. Orissa. According to his case he had disputes, differences and animosity with respondent no. 1 and later with respondent No. 2 also. The appellant by stating very many facts, which are not necessary to be enumerated in this judgment, endeavored to make out a case of mala fides against respondents 1 and 2 and asserted that he was put to trouble and unwarranted and illegal actions were taken against him by or at the instance or respondents 1 and 2.