STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DINABANDHU BEHETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 16/6/1983 was passed dismissing the respondents from service exercising the power contained in proviso (b) to clause (2 of article 311 of the Constitution of India. This action was taken on the basis of the alleged unruly conduct of the respondents along with some others from 1/5/1983 to 5/5/1983 as mentioned in the order of termination passed by Commandant, OSAP 4th Bn" Rourkela. The order merely stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry and, therefore, the requirement of inquiry was dispensed with. The tribunal by the impugned judgment (s) dated 18/6/1990 etc. has quashed the dismissal orders taking the view that the conditions precedent for invoking the power in proviso (b) to clause (2 of Article 311 were not shown to be satisfied. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

(2.) A perusal of the dismissal order dated 16/6/1983 indicates that there is no mention of the reasons required to be recorded by the authority in writing to permit exercise of the power under proviso (b) to clause (2 of article 311. There is no other material produced by the appellant to show that the requisite reasons were recorded by that authority in writing elsewhere. In such a situation, the conclusion reached by the tribunal that this power was not available to dispense with the inquiry cannot be faulted. The tribunal has, however, also directed reinstatement in service of the respondents and payment of the entire back wages to them. However, during pendency of these appeals the operation of the tribunal's order was stayed. Accordingly, the respondents have not as yet been reinstated or paid any back wages. The question is of any appropriate order to be made in these circumstances.

(3.) It is clear that the above defect resulting in the quashing of the dismissal orders does not deprive the appellant of the authority to hold an inquiry into the alleged misconduct and to take the necessary consequential actions depending on the outcome of that inquiry. This aspect appears to have been overlooked by the tribunal while directing reinstatement with back wages. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside this part of the direction given by the tribunal. While setting aside this further direction of the tribunal, we make it clear that it is open to the appellant to hold an inquiry into the allegations of misconduct and to pass the necessary consequential orders depending on the outcome of that inquiry. The final result of that inquiry will determine the relief, if any, to which the respondents would be entitled even in respect of the payments, if any, for the entire period.