PRAVASH KUMAR SAHOO Vs. HONBLE SPEAKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Additional General Secretary of State Non Gazetted Officers Coordination Committee, Orissa, He has stated in the writ petition that he is a public spirited citizen who has fought against corruption, nepotism, mis managements and favourtism in the past and he has filed number of Public Interest Litigation against financial corporations committed by the bureaucrats. He has further stated in the writ petition that Dr. Hrushikesh Panda, I.A.S. is a dutiful, honest and competent officer with integrity and he has submitted various enquiry reports on allegations of corruption and mis management. He has given illustrations of the manner in which Dr. Hrushikesh Panda has discharged his duties of different offices impartially and honestly. He has stated that Dr. Hrushikesh Panda is presently working as C.M.D. of IDCOL and having noticed various irregularities, corruption and mis management, he has initiated action against about 32 employees of IDCOL. He has further stated that he was astonished to see reports in the newspaper on 30.3.2003 that the Orissa Legislative Assembly has resolved on 29.3.2003 to suspend Dr. Hrushikesh Panda and that the Speaker has directed the State Government to suspend Dr. Panda for his mis behaviour with the Minister of State (S.C. and S.T.) and Shri Saharai Oram, Member of Legislative Assembly from Champua Constituency on 15.3.2003 at the Kalinga Iron Works Guest House at Barbil. The petitioner has also stated that the newspaper reports further reveal that notice for privilege motion was given and discussions on the allegations against Dr. Hrushikesh Panda were held on the floor of the Assembly from zero hours to 9 P.M. on 29.3.2003. A copy of the newspaper reports in the daily 'The Samaj' dated 30.3.2003 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 3. He has further stated in the writ petition that on 29.3.2003 Dr. Hrushikesh Panda on coming to learn about enquiry against him from the Television immediately proceeded on leave from 31.3. 2003 in order to facilitate an independent enquiry and that in his leave application he has denied the allegations of misbehaviour by him and requested the Chief Secretary for his transfer out of IDCOL. Shocked and astonished with the resolution adopted by the Orissa Legislative Assembly on 29.3.2003, the petitioner sent an open letter dated 31.3.2003 to the Chief Minister raising various questions, but the State Government without considering the false allegations made against Dr. Hrushikesh Panda illegally conceded and succumbed to the resolution adopted by the House and by order dated 31.3.2003 placed Dr. Hrushikesh Panda under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. A copy of the suspension order dated 31.3.2003 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 7. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said resolution dated 29.3.2003 of the Orissa Legislative Assembly adopted to initiate a Privilege Proceeding against Dr. Hrushikesh Panda and to direct the State Government for his suspension. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order of suspension in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has made a further prayer to the Court to direct the C.B.I. to investigate into the allegations and take appropriate legal action against the culprits.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was moved by Mr. M.S. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner on 25.4.2003, the Court adjourned the matter to 30.4.2003 for hearing from Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner at length on the locus standi of the petitioner and the maintainability of the writ petition. When the case was listed on 30.4.2003, Mr. M.S. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahadev Mishra, learned counsel for the Secretary, Orissa Legislative Assembly opp. party No. 1 and Mr. Sovesh Roy, learned Advocate General, for the State of Orissa were heard.

(3.) MR . Mahadev Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Secretary, Orissa Legislative Assembly opp. party No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that by the impugned resolution of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, no one's right to personal life and liberty has been affected and the case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that proper procedure has not been followed while adopting the impugned resolution. Mr. Mahadev Mishra submitted that the impugned resolution cannot be questioned in the court of law on the ground of irregularity of procedure in view of the immunity granted under Article 212 of the Constitution to the proceedings of the State Legislature. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mishra relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1186, a Full Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Jai Singh Rathi and Ors. v. State of Haryana through the Chief Secy. to Govt. Haryana and Ors., AIR 1970 Punjab and Haryana, 379 and a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. A. Mathialagan v. P. Srinivasan and Ors., AIR 1973 Madras 371.