RABINARAYAN MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a lawyer practising in the Rourkela Bar. In response to an advertisement, he applied for the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. By a notification dated 30-9-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and by a letter dated 30-9-2000 of the said department of the Government of Orissa, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. He assumed charge as President of District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela and started working as such. By another order dated 24-11-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-I in addition to his own duties as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. One Shri Ashwini Kumar Kaiser who was working as Junior Clerk in the office of the President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-I on temporary basis since 25-10-1996 filed an F.I.R. on 2-4-2001 before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur stating therein that he has filed a case before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for continuance in his post in the office of the President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundefgarh-I on permanent basis and alleging that the petitioner was pressurising him to pay a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for submitting a favourable report to the Tribunal for continuance of his service on permanent basis. In the said FIR dated 2-4-2001 Shri Ashwini Kumar Kaiser also stated that apprehending that he may lose his job, he agreed to fulfil the demand of the petitioner in two phases and the petitioner had told him to pay Rs. 5.000/- by 2-4-2002 failing which he will submit an adverse report for termination of his job. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur after receiving the said FIR on 2-4-2001 at 11.00 A.M. directed a case to be registered under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arid further directed Shri Ashwini Kumar Sahoo, Inspector of Vigilance, Rourkela to lay the trap and Shri N. K. Patrick, D.S.P., Vigilance Rourkela Unit to investigate into the case. Thereafter, vigilance trap was laid and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 2-4-2001 as per the vigilance report. An enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur and an enquiry report was submitted by him to the Government in the Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and by notification dated 29-8-2001, the petitioner was removed from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela with immediate effect. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had resigned from the additional charge of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-I on 31-3-2001. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said notification dated 29-8-2001 removing him from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela.

(2.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the impugned notification was issued removing the petitioner from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela, principles of natural justice were not complied with. He contended that on 1-8-2001 at 5 P.M. the petitioner received a communication through FAX to meet the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur in connection with an enquiry on 2-8-2001 but by the said communication dated 1-8-2001 the petitioner was not informed about the allegations against him in respect of which the enquiry was being held. He further submitted that a copy of the enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur was not furnished nor any show cause notice issued to the petitioner before the impugned notification was issued on the basis of the said enquiry report removing the petitioner from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. According to Mr. Routray, therefore, the impugned notification is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In support of this contention Mr. Routray cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL. Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074 : 1994 Lab IC 762, wherein it has been held that the right to make a representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of opportunity of defence against the charges and it is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right and, therefore, a copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to the delinquent employee so that he can make a representation against the charges levelled against him in the enquiry before the disciplinary authority. He also relied on the dec isions of this Court in Dora Gram Panchayat v. State of Orissa, 1999 (2) OLR 463 and M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2002 (I) OLR 410 in which the concept and requirements of natural justice have been explained at length. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, (2001) 1 SCC 182 : AIR 2001 SC 24 in which also the Supreme Court has explained the concept and requirements of natural justice.

(3.) Mr. D. K. Nanda, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opp. parties land 2 that the President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela was not a civil post and there was no necessity to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file a show cause before issuing the impugned notification removing him (petitioner) from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum. Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. He further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (supra) was rendered in the context of the rights of a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State under Article 311 of the Constitution and will not apply to the post of President. District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder. He explained that under Rule 3 (6) (g) & (h) of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, the State Government has the power to remove the petitioner from the Post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum on the basis of a finding in an enquiry and that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur while conducting the enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice. Mr. D. K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the opp. party No. 4 further submitted that sub-Rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules and the proviso thereto does not mention that a show cause notice is to be given to the President or Member of the District Forum before he is removed from his post and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Routray, learned Counsel for the petitioner that a show cause notice was to be served on the petitioner before he was removed from the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum is mis-conceived. He stated that for acceptance of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner on 2-4-2001, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2001 has been registered and on the basis of a detection report of the vigilance against the petitioner for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a criminal case is pending.