GANESH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three writ petitions filed by way of public interest litigation. In O.J.C No. 5920 of 1996, the petitioner claims to be a social worker. His grievance is that in the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, there has been rampant corruption and irregularities resulting in misappropriation and pilferage of public money and bringing the profession of pharmacy to disrepute. One Bimal Kama Mohanty came to be appointed as Secretary of the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy in June, 1992 and during his incumbency a lot of irregularities and illegalities have been committed in the management of the Board. Details have been mentioned in the writ petition, but we need not refer to that as they have been elaborately mentioned in other writ petitions. The petitioner in the circumstances has prayed for a direction to the State Government to cause a detailed independent inquiry into the functioning of the aforesaid Board of Pharmacy and punish the guilty by identifying the persons responsible for the mismanagement.

(2.) IN course of hearing of the writ petitions, learned Advocate General has produced before us the notification dated 27 -4 -2001 issued by the Government in Health and Family Welfare Department as well as the Directorate letter No.5425 dated 28 -4 -2001 reverting the aforesaid B. K. Mohanty from Drugs Controller in -charge to his former post of Deputy Drugs Controller, In the said notification one P. N. Singhdeo, Deputy Drugs Controller has been allowed to work as Drugs Controller on ad hoc basis. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government order B. K. Mohanty handed over the charge as Drugs Controller of Orissa to his successor P. N. Singhdeo on 27 -4 -2001. The learned Advocate General has also produced, copy of letter No. 16709/H dated 23 -4 -2001 of the Government of Orissa in Health and Family Welfare Department initiating departmental disciplinary proceeding against the said Mohanty basing on the report of the State Vigilance Police.

(3.) SHRI Panda learned counsel for the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 13241 of 2000 submitted that the Government has been dilly -dallying and is out to protect the said B. K. Mohanty as no action has yet been taken on the report of the D.M.E.T. (vide Annexure -2). In this connection, he drew our attention to Annexure -13 (note -sheet of the department) from which it appears that when suggestion was made to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the said B. K. Mohanty on the basis of the report of the D.M.E.T., decision was taken to await the judgment of this Court in the present cases. The learned Advocate General has produced the relevant files from the State Government and on perusing the same we are of the prima facie view that the Government has not been taking any prompt decision on the report of the D.M.E.T. which they ought to have taken in the interest of the administration. We need not further dilate on this issue. As there has been much delay in the matter, we call upon the State Government in the department of Health and Family Welfare to take prompt decision on the report of the D.M.E.T. within a fort -night hence.