LAXMINARAYAN SARANGI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sambalpur, No. 4134 dated 22-11-56 dismissing the petitioner from Government service. An appeal was filed before the State government which was unsuccessful.

(2.) THE petitioner entered the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sambalpur in a clerical capacity and was, in due course confirmed in that post. On 4 7-47 he was appointed Inspector of Supplies (Enforcement) with retrospective effect from 24th march 1947 by an order signed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Department of Supply and Transport (See annexure A ). He was however attached to the Supply Branch of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner at Sambalpur. On 28-5-51 proceedings were drawn up against him in respect of 8 charges (Annexure B) and he was called upon to show cause why suitable disciplinary action may not be taken against him. He showed cause but without holding a regular enquiry the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 30-10-51 dismissing him from service (Annexure E ). The petitioner then pointed out to the Deputy commissioner the irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and requested him to reconsider his order. But the Deputy Commissioner declined to accede to his prayer (see annexure J ). Then the petitioner appealed to Government in the supply Department on 30-4-52 (annexure K) who noticed the irregularity in the proceedings and suggested to the Deputy Commissioner to regularise the matter by following the departmental rules relating to conduct of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. The actual order and the date on which the order was passed are not on record. But in the counter affidavit of the Deputy commissioner of Sambalpur (in paragraph 7) this fact was mentioned and not controverted. Moreover, when on receipt of the Government Order the Deputy commissioner tried to regularise the matter (see annexure U), he made a reference to Government of Orissa Supply Department's letter No. 27044 dated 110-53. It may therefore be taken as well established that sometime after October 1953 the Deputy Commissioner, on the advice of the Secretary, Supply department decided to draw up proceedings afresh against the petitioner. But as the previous order of dismissal had not been formally bet aside by the superior authority and no fresh proceedings could be drawn up against a person already dismissed the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 20-10-53 (annexure U)modified his previous order of dismissal to one of suspension from 5-11-51. Against this order also it was pointed out that there could be no retrospective order of suspension. Thereupon, by his subsequent order dated 11-11-54 (annexure Y) he partially modified his earlier order and directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be absent from duty from 26-10-53 till the completion of the departmental proceeding. It may therefore be taken as unchallenged that the original order of dismissal dated 30-10-51 was modified to one of absence from duty till 25-10-53 and suspension from 25-10-53. Then on 30-11-53 (Ann. W) the deputy Commissioner enclosed a copy of the charges against the petitioner together with enquiry report of one Mr. K. P. Dutta, Civil Supply Officer, Sambalpur and informed the petitioner that if he wished to be heard in person the Deputy commissioner would be glad to see him on 10-12-53. The exact date on which Mr. K. P. Dutta conducted the enquiry against the petitioner is not on record, though the petitioner himself had filed a copy of his report along with Annexure W. But apparently the enquiry must have been held sometime before 30-11-53 and sometime after the receipt of Government Orders asking the Deputy Commissioner to regularise the entire proceeding. It is not alleged either in the application under Article 226 or in the subsequent show cause petition filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner that Dutta's enquiry was held behind back or that he was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence or to cross examine his witnesses if desired by him. The enquiry by Mr. Dutta has not been challenged anywhere by the petitioner. Mr. Dutta in his enquiry report held that only 4 out of the 8 charges were proved. On 22-12-54 the Deputy Commissioner (see annexure Z) communicated to the petitioner his own findings on the charges and stated that the charges which had been established were sufficient to warrant his dismissal. Hence he called upon him to show cause why he may not be dismissed from Government service. A copy of his findings was also enclosed along with the second notice. While showing cause against this notice also the petitioner, though he made some grievance of the fact that the S. D. O. Bargarh had made some previous enquiry behind his back (annexure Z. b) did not allege that Mr. Dutta's enquiry was held behind his back. The enquiry by S. D. O. Bargarh took place much earlier on 29-7-1952 see annexure Z a/1. A personal hearing also appears to have been given to the petitioner sometime before 10-2-55 (see annexure Z/c) and eventually, on 22-1156 the Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from service with effect from 18-1156 (Annexure Z-d ).

(3.) THUS, whatever might have been the irregularities committed in the departmental proceedings prior to October 1953 there can be no doubt that thereafter the requirements of natural justice embodied in Article 311 (2) of the constitution have been followed. The previous order of dismissal dated October 30, 1951 was modified to one of suspension, charges were again communicated to the petitioner (Annexure W) some sort of enquiry was made by Mr. K. P. Dutta, civil Supplies Officer, Sambalpur, a copy of his findings was forwarded to the petitioner and then he was called upon to show cause why suitable action may not he taken against him. The Deputy Commissioner then tentatively held that he should be dismissed from service and issued the second notice on the petitioner to show cause why that punishment may not be inflicted (see annexure Z); and then, after giving a personal hearing he eventually dismissed him from service. Though the actual details connected with the enquiry made by Sri K. P. Dutta and the exact dates of that enquiry are not on record, nevertheless as the petitioner had on no previous occasion, alleged that the enquiry was held against the rules of natural justice or else that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine witnesses or to adduce evidence on his behalf, I must hold, so far as the proceeding is concerned, that the enquiry was held in accordance with the rules. Two notices were also sent to the petitioner as required by law. Hence there was no violation of the rules of natural justice or of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution when the Deputy Commissioner finally dismissed him from service in 1956. Mr. R. Mohanty, however, urged that the Deputy Commissioner must have been very much influenced? by the ex-parte enquiry made by the S. D. O. , bargarh in July 1952 (annexure Z-a/1) before coming to his findings. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner do not show that he was in any way influenced by the opinion expressed by the S. D. O. Bargarh. On the other hand the later enquiry held by Mr. Dutta was on record and was duly considered by him. It is true that the deputy Commissioner eventually did not accept all the findings of Mr. Dutta, but he was not bound, in law, to accept those findings.