SURYA NARAYAN ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a Junior Grade Diarist, Industries Department being dismissed from Government service as per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to C.C.A. Rules, 1962) vide Government Office Order No. VIII-OE-106/2005. 2909/I dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure-4) approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench by filing Original Application No. 385 of 2010 praying therein for quashing the order of the Government at Annexure-4 or in the alternate to quash Annexure-1 with consequential relief for a direction to the respondent No.1 for payment of compensatory pension so also for regular pension to him. The Tribunal by the impugned order at Annexure-1 dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner and did not interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the Government. Being aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal at Annexure-1, the present petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the impugned order at Annexure-1 and to direct the opposite parties to pay the service benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner s case is that while he was working as a Junior Grade Diarist in Industries Department, Government of Orissa was involved in a case of dowry death and torture of his daughter-in-law and faced trial in the court of the Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar vide S.T. No. 164-62 of 2005 arising out of G.R. Case No. 4150 of 2004, having been charged under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was found guilty of the offences under Section 304-B and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. He was further convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. After such conviction the present petitioner two days prior to his attaining the age of normal superannuation was dismissed from service as per the order of the Government dated 26.2.2007. The aforesaid order of the Government was challenged by the petitioner before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, but the same was dismissed vide Annexure-1.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the impugned order at Annexure-1 is a non-speaking one and such order has been passed without application of judicial mind and conscience and the Tribunal did not thought it proper to look into the illegalities committed by the Administrative Department in passing the order of dismissal without recording the reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry as contemplated by Article 311(2). It is also the case of the petitioner that when the Administrative Department namely the disciplinary authority violated the constitutional obligation and when the order of penalty is void and unconstitutional one it is most unfortunate that the Tribunal being a quasi judicial authority while acting in exercise of its statutory power failed to discharge its duty fairly with an open mind. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-1 as well as the order of dismissal at Annexure-4.