RAKHAL CHANDRA KANUNGO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against, a confirming judgment.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiff is that he joined as L.D.Clerk on 21.6.1965 in the Court of the Special Railway Magistrate, Cuttack. On 5.6.1969 the Special Railway Magistrate Court was shifted from Cuttack to Khurda Road and accordingly the appellant also being attached to the Court worked at Khurda. In the year 1978 the C.J.M., Puri in course of inspection of some records found certain irregularities in maintenance of the records relating to deposits and accounts. Nine years thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant and Sri R.N. Chatterji, the then C.J.M., Puri was appointed as the Enquiring Officer by the District Judge, Puri. On completion of enquiry the Enquiring Officer found the plaintiff appellant guilty of five charges out of six and submitted report to the District Judge. Thereafter, the plaintiff was called upon to show cause as to why major penalty shall not be imposed on him and without awaiting for the show cause the date was fixed to 15.4.1982 for personal hearing. After such personal hearing the District; Judge, Puri passed an order for retirement of plaintiff appellant compulsorily which was received by him on 2.3.1983. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Registrar of this Court having been rejected on 1.4.1994, a writ application was filed. Said writ application was withdrawn and the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is continuing in service till date of superannuation with all financial benefits and for declaration that the orders passed by the District Judge and the Registrar of this Court are illegal, void and inoperative.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 filed his written statement stating that in view of the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try suit relating to service matters. It is stated in the written statement of defendant No. 2 that original charges framed against the plaintiff on 30.1.78 were served on 31.1.78 directing him to file his show cause by 24.2.1978. Thus the plaintiff had sufficient time and opportunity to file show cause by 30.10.79 when the charges were amended but he did not chose to file the same. After the amendment of the charges, he was again given time till 11.1.80 to file show cause. Since the plaintiff failed to file show cause, the enquiry had to commence and it cannot be said that the plaintiff had not been afforded opportunity of filing show cause to the charges. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was allowed to engage a lawyer to cross examine the three witnesses out of four examined on behalf of the employer and declined to cross examine the witness No. 4. Further case of the defendant No. 2 is that after submission of the enquiry report the District Judge, Puri while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer issued second show cause notice to the plaintiff on 15.3.1982. The plaintiff also appeared personally before the District Judge on 15.4.11982 and time was also granted to him till 2.1.1983 to file his show cause. Since the plaintiff did not file show cause the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed by the learned District Judge. It is also contended that there is no violation of any statutory provision calling for interference of the Civil Court.