UMA CHARAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has challenged the legality of the office order No. 16273 dated 20th May, 2000 issued by the Under -Secretary to Government of Orissa in Housing and Urban Development Department for placing the petitioner under suspension as well as the order of suspension dated 27.6.2000.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the year 1963 in Berhampur Municipality. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 1981. While working as such, he was directed to discharge the duties of Tax Daroga from 1993 onwards and he was continuing in the same post till the order of suspension was passed. The case of the petitioner is that from 1963 till 2000 there was no allegation whatsoever with regard to dereliction in duty or deficiency in service. A Vigilance Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27 of 2000 dated 5.5.2000 on the ground thai the petitioner possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the basis of the pending Vigilance Case, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, wrote a letter to the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality that since a case has been registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, for fair and impartial investigation, action as deemed proper may be taken against the petitioner. This letter was written by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on 17.5.2000. Again on 20.5.2000 the Under -Secretary to Government in Housing and Urban Development Department wrote a letter to the Chairperson, Berhampur Municipality, to put the petitioner under suspension immediately and after receipt of the said letter, the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality, issued the order of suspension on 27.6.2000.

(3.) SHRI N.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Berhampur Municipality, has filed a counter stating that the Chairperson of the Municipality in his letter dated 29.5.2000 (Annexure -3) had requested the Under -Secretary to reconsider the direction for putting the petitioner under suspension. but as the order under Annexure -2 was passed Under Section 400(1) of the Act the Chairperson had to put the petitioner under suspension.