DIBAKAR MAHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Disciplinary Proceeding No.11 of 2004 (LVIII -5/08)which was subsequently confirmed by the Appeal Committee of this Court on 18.3.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect and observing that the same shall be a disqualification for future employment.

(2.) THE facts as reveal from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack on 29.7.1976. Thereafter, on the authority being satisfied with his conduct, sincerity and obedience in due discharge of his duties, he was promoted and worked as Library Attendant in the Court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack with effect from 3.11.1984 upto 30.9.2004. During the said period of his service, there were no adverse entries against the petitioner. While the matter stood thus, on 30.9.2004 as per Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in short "CCA Rules"), the learned District Judge, Cuttack passed the order of suspension and initiated a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner. On 8.10.2004, charges were framed against the petitioner, i.e., (i) while posted as Library Attendant he incurred a housing loan of Rs.1,30,000/ - under the Flood Loan Scheme from the Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Cuttack without prior sanction of the authority and made unauthorised borrowing, (ii) he forged the signature and seal of his drawing and disbursing officer (i.e., the Registrar, Civil Court, Cuttack) in the loan application form, salary certificate and forwarding letter and misrepresented the Union Bank of India regarding his salary and wrongfully and fraudulently obtained the loan. His dishonest actions amounted to gross misconduct on the part of a Government servant and (iii) he furnished a fake salary certificate for the month of July, 2004 with the loan application to the Bank which was not his actual salary. Thereby, he deceived the Bank with false representation and his action was prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the authority. He acted immorally and dishonestly and cannot be trusted by the employer. On 16.11.2004, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence clarifying therein his stand on the accusations. He answered all the charges individually and in details explaining the actual situations of the alleged circumstances while admitting the fact that he incurred the housing loan under the Flood Loan Scheme from the Union Bank of India. He specifically denied that the loan application submitted by him to the Bank contained the forged signature and seal of the drawing and disbursing officer. He further explained that he was the sole earning member of his family and in the Super -Cyclone of the year 1999, his house was completely demolished. Being a low paid Government servant, he was in dire need of financial support to rebuild his house. He discussed his problem with his friend, namely, Dusasana Das of Pithapur, Cuttack, who gave him an impression that he had a good acquaintance with the drawing and disbursing officer and assured the petitioner that he would get the loan application along with its enclosures approved by the drawing and disbursing officer. The petitioner trusted such assurance of Dusasana Das. In his turn, Dusasana Das got the loan application duly approved by the drawing and disbursing officer with all required enclosures. The petitioner not being appropriately qualified and acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the drawing and disbursing officer, could not understand the purport and contents of the loan application and its enclosures. In good faith, believing that the said application along with its enclosures to be genuine, he submitted those papers to the Bank. Acceptance of those papers by the Bank augmented the petitioners faith in Dusasana Das as well as the genuineness of his application and its enclosures. Further the petitioner submitted that he never doubted the genuineness of those documents and also regarding incorrect description of his salary. As soon as he received all these allegations and charges, he rushed to Dusasana Das to enquire about the real affairs but found him to be seriously ailing. Dusasana Das died due to his illness adding to the utter misfortune of the petitioner. He further stated that he had not spent the loan amount of Rs.1,30,000/ - and was ready to refund the said amount with accrued interest as and when directed. He never wilfully and consciously committed any act prejudicial to the conduct of a Government servant and prayed the authority to kindly exonerate him of the charges in such background.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor Class -IV employee and he had already explained the circumstances under which he was misrepresented by Dusasana Das. He had no knowledge about the genuineness of the signature of the drawing and disbursing officer. Also being an uneducated poor person, the petitioner was not able to participate in the disciplinary proceeding effectively by engaging a counsel and cross -examine the witnesses who are highly qualified officers. He further submitted that since Dusasana Das, who was the vital material witness of defence, died in the meantime the petitioner was not able to prove his innocence in the matter. The said fact has not been considered by the authority which had a strong evaluate concern for the defence of the petitioner. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner should be considered sympathetically by setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.