DILLIP KUMAR ROY Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails the order of his removal from service (Annexure - 18) and the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal (Annexure -22) as illegal and unconstitutional. The further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the disciplinary proceeding (Annexure -2) and for a declaration that the initiation and continuance of Departmental Proceeding No. 5 of 1989 as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential relief, directing the opp. parties to deem the petitioner as continuing in service, with consequential service benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in brief is that while working as a Court officer in the establishment: of this Court, he was placed under suspension by order dated 17 -9 -1989, a copy of which is Annexure -1. The charges against him were communicated by the Registrar (Judl.) on 21 -12 -1939 under Annexure -2. The petitioner made an application to the Disciplinary Authority for supply of the required documents by letter dated 26 -12 -1989 (Annexure -3). The Special Officer (Admn.) by letter dated 20 -6 -1990 (Annexure -4) supplied certain documents, but some of the vital documents were not supplied on the ground of its non -availability. The petitioner, in his application dated 21 -9 -1990 (Annexure -5), asked for certain documents as they were vitally required and relevant for the purpose filing the show cause. But without giving any reply, the Enquiring Officer was appointed, the enquiry continued and the disciplinary proceeding ended by inflicting punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Hon'ble the Chief Justice but that was Dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing O. J. C. No. 6087 of 1992, which was allowed by the Court quashing the order of punishment and the order of Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority. But in view of the gravity of the charges, the High Court remanded the Disciplinary proceeding to the stage of enquiry and the matter was to be enquired into afresh after supplying the documents mentioned in Item Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 under Annexure 6 to the petition within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was also directed to be continued under suspension in view of Rule 12(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

(3.) THE Registrar (Judicial) of the Court (opp. party No. 2) has filed a comprehensive counter affidavit controverting and denying the allegations of non -supply of the documents in terms of the order of the earlier writ application. It is his specific stand that all the available documents in terms of the direction were supplied to the petitioner under letter No. 17507 dated 1 -10 -1993. It is stated that copies of documents at serial Nos. 7,8, 11 and 12 of Annexure -6 to the earlier writ application were supplied, but due to non -availability and non -existence, the documents at serial Nos. 4 and 5 thereof, could not be supplied. With regard to the allegation of part or incomplete documents supplied to the petitioner it has been stated that the documents at -serial No. 7 contained only 13 sheets but inadvertently due to typographical mistake, it was written in the official record as 14 sheets, which is taken advantage of by the petitioner. But since the documents contained only 13 sheets, mention of 14 sheets in the forwarding report does not make the documents incomplete. So far as the documents at serial 8 is concerned, it is stated that the entire and complete documents were supplied, but the petitioner's grievance that the order of the competent authority was not supplied, is a myth, since no such order of the competent authority did exist on the representation of the petitioner at serial 8. The representation of the petitioner was received by the Assistant Registrar and he in turn endorsed it to the Superintendent and the endorsement was made on the body of the representation and no further order or endorsement being made on his representation, the question of supplying the same did not arise. Similarly, it is stated that the documents at serial 11 relates to Standing Order/Duty Chart of the Court Officer for different periods and accordingly, all standing orders bearing No. 2 of 1975, 3 of 1977 and 4 of 1977 along with the order dated 5 -9 -1989 prescribing the duty of the Court Officer had been supplied and nothing was withheld. Inasmuch as, the petitioner having not specified any particular duty chart, which has not been supplied, the bald allegation of non -supply is with the purpose of making out a case only. In regard to the last item of documents at serial 12, the purported voucher of one Bipin Kumar Mallik, Mulia, it is stated that no such voucher was available nor that was an issue or relied upon by the Department for establishing any of the charges of the petitioner and therefore, the question of prejudice does not arise. The voucher relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority was supplied to the petitioner, as would be apparent from his admission. This opposite party has taken a stand that the alleged documents at serial Nos. 4 and 5 are non -existing documents to the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore there was no question of supply or non -supply of the same, It is alleged that the petitioner fully well knew that no such document had ever existed, but want of non -existing documents obviously purports for making out a case and for dragging the proceeding. It is stated that in any event, non -supply of non -existing and non -available documents would in no way prejudice the petitioner and the demand for supply of some documents other than those directed by the Court is a deliberate attempt to prolong the proceeding only.