MADHUSUDAN MISRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH a number of contentions had been raised in the writ application, the only point urged during hearing is that the report of the inquiring officer was not given to the Petitioner and as such the impugned order of discharge (Annexure -7) dated 28.10.1964 and Annexure 8 dated 18.8.1965 and 10 dated 2 -1 -1969 are liable to be quashed.

(2.) FACTS relevant to the aforesaid contention may only he stated. The Petitioner was appointed as a driver by Annexnre -1 dated 13/14th December, 1953 in the State Transport Service, Sambalpur zone. The post was purely temporary and terminable at any time without notice.

(3.) THE first question for consideration is whether, in fact, the inquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner in response to his demand in Annexure -5 in his explanation (Annexure -6) the Petitioner made a grievance of non -supply of a copy of the Government circular (item No. 4 in annexure -5). But he made no grievance about non -supply of a copy of the inquiry report. Further more, he attached a copy of the findings of the inquiring officer to the memorandum of second appeal (Annexure -9) filed before the Minister. He has not explained in his affidavit as to how and when he got the copy of the findings of the inquiring officer so as to enclose the same with Annexure -9 Neither in Annexure -6 nor at any subsequent stage be made any grievance about non -supply of the copy of the inquiry report. The reasonable inference from the intrinsic evidence and the surrounding circumstances is that the inquiry report was supplied to him before be filed his explanation ( Annexure - 6). Factually, therefore, the Petitioner 's stand that he was not supplied with the copy of the inquiry report is untrue.