STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SAILABEHARI CHATTERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant (State of Orissa) against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for damages for wrongful discharge from Government service and for other reliefs.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed as sub-deputy Collector by the Government of orissa on 11-12-39 (Ext. 2 ). After serving in various posts, he was promoted as deputy Collector on 3-2-1946, posted to Koraput as Sub Divisional Officer and special Assistant Agent on 4-5-58 and transferred to Sundargarh as Sadar Sub-divisional Officer on 18-10-48 and confirmed as Deputy Collector with effect from 1-1-1949.

(3.) A case under S, 406 I. P. C. was pending in his file against one Batakrushna sahu from March 1949 and in connection with that case it was alleged that the respondent, through his Bench Clerk, demanded a bribe from one Gopal Sahu, uncle of Batakrushna Sahu. As respondent's reputation for honesty was not good, the then Additional Magistrate of Sundargarh decided to lay a trap against the respondent with the assistance of Gopal Sahu who was given two marked one hundred rupee notes to be delivered to the respondent. The trap which was laid on the night of 27-7-49 was said to have been successful, when the said Gopal Sahu handed over the money to the respondent at his residence. Immediately afterwards a search party consisting of the Additional District magistrate, Sundargarh, and some Police Officers entered the respondent's house and recovered the two marked currency notes, along with cash amounting to Rs. 1074/-fron an open drawer in a room of the respondent's house. On further search cash amounting to Rs. 6600/-was also recovered fin currency notes) from a, locked almirah along with a Post Office Savings Bank Pass book showing a balance of Rs. 1500/ -. Immediately afterwards the respondent was placed under suspension and a case under Section 161 I. P. C. (G. R. Case No. 1/268/45 of 1949) was started against him. That case ended in his conviction in the Court of the then District Magistrate of Sundargarh, but on appeal the learned Sessions judge by his judgment dated 24-5-56 (Ext. 8) acquitted the respondent holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not "completely exclude the possibility of the theory of planting". But the learned Judge also observed that there "was enough room for suspicion against the conduct of the respondent".