PADMA CHARAN TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the validity of the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 17.10.1998 dismissing his O.A. No. 3627(C) of 1996 which was directed against the order of his reversion.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief is that, while he was working as Assistant Engineer in -charge of Balimela Electrical Division, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The following charges were framed against him :

(3.) WE have perused the records of the disciplinary proceeding produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. On perusal of the disciplinary file it is found that, no witness was examined during the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has simply recorded the statement of the petitioner and concluded the proceedings on the same day. The Enquiry Officer appears to have relied upon some documents marked as '(a) to (k)'. On the basis of such materials, he held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer stated in his report that the oral evidence adduced was taken on 25.4.95 but no such oral evidence is available on record. It appears from the record that the Enquiry Officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(6) of the CCA. Rules by not examining witnesses and not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to controvert the documentary evidence exhibited by the department. It is worth -while to mention here that the Enquiry Officer called one P.C. Mohapatra, Junior Engineer (Electrical) for his oral evidence, but he was not examined. No reason is assigned by the Enquiry Officer for his non -examination. We also find from the records that the Enquiry Officer has not followed the procedure, such as. non -maintaining of the order sheet, non -recording of the evidence, non -affording of opportunities to the petitioner to controvert the documentary evidence and to examine any witness in his defence. Since the procedure envisaged under Rule 15 of the CCA. Rules is not followed, the enquiry is vitiated affecting the report of the Enquiry Officer.