CHAKRADHAR MOHAPATRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Personal Assistant to the Vice chancellor of Orissa Agricultural of University and Technology (in short 'the O.U.A.T.'), Bhubaneswar. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for mis conduct and he was removed from service by order dated 30.3.1973 of the Vice Chancellor of the O.U.A.T.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition in O.J.C. No. 1234 of 1974 challenging the order of removal and the writ petition was dismissed on 25.8.1976 by this Court. He challenged the order of dismissal passed by this Court before the Supreme Court in S.L.R No. 763 of 1977 but did not succeed in his challenge. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the Board of Management of O.U.A.T. on 29.4.1981. When the said representation was not considered by the Board of Management, the petitioner filed a writ petition O.J.C. No. 1136 of 1990 before this Court and by order dated 26.8.1992, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the O.U.A.T. to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order if the same had not been disposed of. The Vice Chancellor, O.U.A.T. then placed the representation of the petitioner before the Board of Management and a Sub Committee was constituted to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner. The Sub Committee, could not submit a report on account of the ailment of its Chairman and without waiting for the report of the Sub Committee the representation Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice Chnclr. and Chrman., O.U.A.T. of the petitioner was rejected by the Board of Management. The petitioner then filed another writ petition O.J.C. No. 866 of 1993 and by order dated 29.3.1996, this Court directed that a fresh Sub Committee will be constituted which will submit a report to the Board of Management and the matter shall be decided by the Board of Management within two months from the date of receipt of the report of the Sub Committee. The Sub Committee so constituted submitted its report dated 26.8.1996. In the said report, the Sub Committee observed that it did not find any material to entertain the representation of the petitioner and felt that the case of the petitioner should be rejected finally. The Board of management of O.U.A.T. accepted the said report of the Sub Committee by its resolution dated 30.10.1996. By a communication dated 4.12.1996, the Registrar, O.U.A.T. informed the petitioner about the aforesaid decision of the Board of Management.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of removal praying for quashing the report of the Sub Committee dated 26.8.1996 and the resolution dated 30.10.1996 of the Board of Management accepting the said report and for declaring the petitioner as still continuing in service till the date of superannuation with consequential benefits of service, salary, allowances and other service benefits like, leave, medical facilities and other facilities including usual pensionary benefits. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the order dated 20.8.2001 of the Supreme Court in the writ petition (Civil) D19146 of 2000 would show that the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the observation that this would not prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the remedy, if available, by any other way in accordance with law and has therefore, approached this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief. He further argued that in the earlier writ petition O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996, this Court has not considered the contentions of the parties on merits. According to the petitioner, the Court should have carefully read the writ petition, the grounds raised in it, the counter affidavit of the opp. parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides should have recorded the concise statement of facts of the case, point for determination and the decision thereon with reasons, but a reading of the order dated 17.2.1999 passed in O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996 would show that the Court has not considered the writ petition, counter affidavits and the arguments of both the sides and has not decided the points for determination. He further submitted that it is true that the order dated 17.2.1999 passed in O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996 was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 16804 of 1999 and the said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.1.2000, but the said SLP was dismissed in limine and, therefore, there is Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice Chnclr. & Chrman., O.U.A.T. no difficulty in considering the writ petition again under Article 226 of the Constitution.