CHIRANJIB PARIDA Vs. SUITE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. IN EDUCATION AND YOUTH SERVICES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which need be noted for disposal of the case are these while the Petitioner was serving as a graduate teacher in K.N. Janata High School, Sajanapara some allegations, such as, absence without intimation, negligence in duty violation of the rules of the school insubordination and indulging in indisciplined activities were made against him. This was some time in August, 1978. The Petitioner Submitted his explanation denying the allegations. He Was thereafter placed under Suspension on 14 -2 -1979 pending inquiry into the charges drawn up against him. The Managing Committee thereafter Constituted an enquiry committee to enquire into the Charges framed against the Petitioner. This inquiry committee consisted of one member of the Managing Committee and two 'Outsiders. The Petitioner raised objection regarding, constitution of the enquiry 'Committee and did not participate in the deliberations of the Committee. The enquiry was, therefore, conducted ex parte and a report was submitted to the Managing Committee which was considered by it OR 29 -9 -1979 and it resolved, on the basis of the findings arrived at by the enquiry committee, to recommend removal of the Petitioner from service from 1 -10 -1979. The advice of the Director of Secondary" Education was sought in the matter as required by Rule 22(12) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members and Staff of Aided - Educational Institutions Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Rules' ). This letter of the Managing Committee dated 12 -10 -1979 was replied by the Director vide his Memo No. 9338 dated 23 -2 -1983 desiring fresh enquiry as the enquiry committee consisted of two outsiders. There was some exchange of correspondence between the, Managing Committee and the Director thereafter" which resulted in the letter of the Deputy Director No. 9727 dated 4 -4 -1984 requesting the Managing Committee to appoint an Enquiry Officer after observing the procedure as provided under Rule 22(4) of the Rules. The Managing Committee, however took the stand that there was no defect in the enquiry which had been conducted by the committee appointed by it about which reference has been made earlier.

(2.) ON the aforesaid fads, the only question which really calls for determination is whether the enquiry in the case at hand by the committee as constituted by the Managing Committee was in accordance with law or not. A reply to this question' has to be found in Rule 22(4) of this Rules which at the relevant time read as below:

(3.) LET us see whether the aforesaid decisions can be called in aid by Dr. Dash. In Bhagatram, a submission had been advanced that the enquiry against the Petitioner having been conducted by an officer who was subordinate to the General Manager -who was his disciplinary authority -was vitiated. This contention was regarded as without merit by stating that an enquiry officer could be subordinate to the punishing authority. A reference to paragraph 9 of the judgment shows that the contention had been advanced to satisfy the mind of the Court that an enquiry by a subordinate officer could not have been fair or unbiased. The contention was rejected by stating that the mere fact that the enquiry officer was a subordinate employee or was subordinate in position to the General Manager would not indicate that he could not form his independent judgment and was under the influence of his superior officers. The point at issue in the case at hand is, however, entirely different inasmuch as the same is whether a person unknown to Rule 22(4) could have been made a member of the enquiry committee In this connection it is worthwhile to point out that in Bhagatram, the Court was examining this aspect of the matter in the context of the provisions finding place in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 whose Rule 14(2) speaks of enquiry by the disciplinary authority but which also visualises appointment of an authority to enquiry into the charges. We may point out that Rule 15(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 also speaks about enquiry into the 'charges by the disciplinary authority, inter alia, by "an inquiring officer" the wide language used in either the Central Civil Services Rules or the Orissa Civil Services Rules is not to be found in Rule 22(4) which has named as to who could be the persons apart from the disciplinary authority to enquire into charges.