HAREKRISHNA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was an Overseer (Electrical) under the Paradip Port Trust having been dismissed from service and his departmental appeal against the dismissal having failed, has come before this Court seeking redress. The petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding initiated on charges as per Annexure-1 issued on June 29, 1983 on two counts, that firstly, while functioning as Overseer (Electrical) in Building Construction Division during the period from April 14, 1982 till June 29, 1983 he had submitted improper and fictitious records to the verification committee constituted on December 18, 1982 in connivance with one R. K. Sarangi, Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and at no time had submitted proper or up-to-date site accounts in time to the Division Office during his incumbency in the Building Construction Division, and secondly, that he had concealed during the same period huge quantities of costly electrical materials of the Port Trust in connivance with the same Assistant Engineer in Shop No. 2 of Madhuban Market Complex and in a Type 'a' quarters in Block No. 18 at Madhuban. So far as the first count was concerned he was alleged to have exhibited negligence and dereliction of duty unbecoming of a public servant and as regards the second, he was charged of being guilty of lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a public servant and having violated under both the counts Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Along with the charges, the petitioner was supplied with the statements of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support to both the charges, a list of documents by which the charges were to be sustained and a list of witnesses in support of the charges. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence and to state whether he desired to be heard in person. The petitioner did not submit his written statement which he complains was not possible to be submitted since he had been harassed and the necessary documents had not been supplied to him. An inquiry officer Was appointed to hold the inquiry who after inquiry submitted a report to the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service on March 12, 1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of India against the order of his dismissal but it was rejected on September 23, 1985.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 to which the petitioner has also filed two affidavits in rejoinder. In the counter-affidavit the opposite parties have disputed the stand of reasonable opportunity having not been afforded and contended that the petitioner had deliberately not filed the written statement of defence even though all documents had been supplied to him. It is their further case that the inquiry had been conducted in fair manner but that the petitioner did not deliberately participate in the same, that it was not necessary to supply a copy of the inquiry report to him and that he had never made any application to the disciplinary authority for change of the inquiring officer.

(3.) MR. B. B. Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made the submissions, assailing the order of dismissal and the appellate order, that: