DUSMANTA KISHORE SWAIN Vs. CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are persons who have a habit of approaching the Courts more than once for ventilating their grievance and there are also persons who are compelled to approach the Court for redressal of contemplated injustice caused to them. The petitioner belongs to later class.

(2.) THE facts and point of law in all these Writ Petitions being more or less identical, the same are taken up for hearing with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) ON the basis of certain allegations the petitioner was put under suspension in the year 2007 by the Vice -Chairman -cum -Disciplinary Authority of C.D.A. Subsequently on 18.4.2007 the Disciplinary Authority issued a Memorandum of Article of Charges and decided to hold an enquiry in consonance with Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Service (C.C. and A) Rules, 1962. The main allegation was with regard to negligence in duty, misuse of official position and misconduct. The petitioner was called upon to submit his show cause within 30 days. Due to paucity of time it is stated, the petitioner was not in a position to prepare his show cause and prayed for extension of time. The petitioner also requested to supply certain relevant documents basing upon which charges were framed so as to enable him to file a full -fledged show cause. It is alleged, instead of considering the application filed by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority appointed opposite party No.4 as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, opposite party No.4 issued a letter calling upon the petitioner to attend the preliminary enquiry, which was scheduled to 11.6.2007. After receipt of the above two letters the petitioner once again requested the authorities to supply copies of relevant papers and documents on the basis of which charges were framed so as to enable him to file his show cause. The petitioner also filed another application with a prayer to change the Enquiry Officer -opposite party No.4 mainly on the ground that some of the charges have been framed at the behest of said opposite party. According to the petitioner in course of discharging his duties he had pointed out certain illegalities and irregularities in the accounting procedure adopted by opposite party No.4 who was working as an Engineer at the relevant time and that he is the main architect in leveling the allegation against the petitioner and initiation of the proceeding.