JAGANNATH DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY this writ application has been filedchallenging the legality of the order of suspension on the ground ofjurisdiction. However, during pendency of the writ application thedepartmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner was completed andhe was removed from service. Thereafter, with the leave of the Court the writ application wasamended with a prayer to quash the order of removal with all consequentialservice and monetary benefits.

(2.) THE basic questions which arise for determination in this writ application are whether the disciplinary authority has the power to remand the departmental proceeding to the enquiry officer for a fresh enquiry; and whether the report of the enquiry officer, when the enquiry is not conducted by the disciplinary authority is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority. All other questions raised during the course of hearing of the writ application have become in fructuous in view of the final disposal of the departmental proceeding.

(3.) THE Petitioner was initially appointed as Debottar Supervisor, Nayagarh. The Commissioner of Endowments as per order No. 21 dated 6.1.1979 appointed the Petitioner as whole time Debottar Manager on a monthly pay of Rs. 90 -150/ -. The Petitioner claimed that the Debottar Manager is not an office holder or servant attached to any particular religious institution and he does not receive any remuneration from the funds of any religious institution, rather it is paid from the general establishment funds of Nayagarh Debottar. The Petitioner claims that he has been directly appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments and his appointment can not be governed under Section 31 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) and as such the procedure provided under Section 32 of the Act is not applicable to him. The Petitioner claims that opposite party No. 2 is not his appointing authority and therefore he is not competent to pass the order of suspension. Initially the Petitioner was allowed to draw subsistence allowance, but subsequently opposite party No. 2 intimated that he is not entitled to get any subsistence allowance. This matter was before this Court in Misc. Case No. 2566 of 1995 wherein this Court ordered that the subsistence allowance to be paid to the Petitioner.