DILIP KUMAR ROY Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of removal dated 7 -2 -1992 passed by the disciplinary authority who is the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, annexed as Annexure -22, finding the petitioner guilty i.e. departmental proceeding bearing D. P. No. 5 of 1989 and the appellate order passed by the Chief Justice of this Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal as communicated to the petitioner under Annexure -24 are the subject -matter of challenge in this writ application.

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as the Court Officer of the Orissa High Cou't was placed under suspension by order dated 17 -9 -1989 and a set of charges were framed against him which were communicated to him on 21 -12 -1989. When the petitioner was called upon to file his explanation, he applied for certain documents by letter dated 26 -12 -1989 in order to enable him to file his defence. Though the petitioner applied for 21 documents, but only four documents were supplied and before any explanation was received from the petitioner, an Enquiring Officer was appointed. That enquiry was ultimately terminated by holding the petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority terminated the petitioner from his services. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Chief Justice of this Court who on consideration dismissed the appeal and hence the present writ application.

(3.) THE charges levelled against the petitioner are rather grave which would tantamount to gross misconduct on the part of the delinquent and gross disobedience of orders of the higher authority. The said charges have been enumerated in Annexure -2 to the writ application. The petitioner had been requesting for supply of documents ever since he received the charges against him and was called upon to file the explanation. But the registry of the Court did not supply the documents excepting four documents, as would appear from Annexure -4 and on 19 -9 -1990, the petitioner was communicated by letter No. 6939 that no more documents would be supplied to him. The petitioner, however, again requested on 21 -9 -1990 to supply the rest of the documents which are absolutely necessary for preparing his defence, as would appear from Annexure -6, but without giving any reply, the date of hearing was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 4 -12 -1990, annexed as Annexure -7, Petitioner pursued his request for getting copies of the documents and finally not being supplied with the documents did not file any explanation and the enquiry proceeded. The petitioner had also filed a representation before the Enquiring Officer indicating his prejudice for non supply of the material documents as would appear from Annexure -13, but it was of no avail and finally the enquiry was concluded and petitioner was found guilty and ultimately was terminated from services. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority who is the Chief Justice of this Court came to the conclusion that refusal of the authority to supply documents mentioned in serial Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 11 was wrong, but being of the opinion that there has been no prejudice to the delinquent, the appellants authority did not interfere with the ultimate conclusion. Then again, the petitioner had called for the records of the preliminary enquiry supposed to have been made before passing the order of suspension and that had been refused on the ground that no preliminary enquiry had been held, as would be apparent from the order of the appellate authority itself. But in this Court, the Hon'ble Chief Justice himself has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that on enquiry he found that there was a preliminary enquiry and indeed, statements of 21 persons had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry which were exhibited in the departmental enquiry, but no report of the preliminary enquiry had been prepared nor was any record kept showing day to day progress of the same and he states that there was factual mistake which had crept in the appellate order on account of non -supply of materials to the appellate authority while deciding the appeal.