SADASHIB MOHAPATRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR CUM CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the Writ Petitions has challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order under Annexures 7 and 13 for reduction of his rank from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with other punishments passed by his disciplinary authority. He has also placed his grievance for inaction of the Opposite Parties as he was not given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant again after his demotion.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected by the committee of University of Agriculture and Technology and was appointed directly as Senior Clerk. He joined the same post on 14.8.1970. During his incumbency as Senior Assistant (Accountant cum Head Clerk) in the College of Agriculture and Regional Research Station, O.U.A.T. at Chiplima, he was placed under suspension on 23.7.1984 pending the disciplinary proceeding vide Order No. 1820 dated 23.7.1984 for gross negligence in duty and misappropriation of University money to the tune of 18,878.89p. (Annexure 1). An FIR (Annexure 2) was also lodge for the incident. The preliminary report was drawn up vide Annexure 3. The petitioner answered the charges on 4.11.1984 vide Annexure 4. The enquiry was concluded and resulted in stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect and recovery. On 26.9.1987, Opposite Parties issued second show cause notice (Annexure 5) to the petitioner proposing reduction of his rank from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with recovery of the amount misappropriated. The petitioner submitted his explanation (Annexure 6) that he was not supplied with the enquiry report of the Enquiring Officer and the authority cannot differ from the recommendation of the Enquiring Officer proposing higher punishment as he was initially appointed as Senior Assistant. But, the same did not yield any result in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, punishment was inflicted under Annexure 7 by reducing in rank from the post of Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with recovery of the amount misappropriated treating the period of suspension as such. After communication of the order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 116(2)(b) of the Statute if O.U.A.T. before the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology through proper channel on 11.12.1987 pleading to exonerate him from all the charges, and punishment including reduction of rank. Though initially the authority remained callous in disposing the appeal, but only after the order of this Court in O.J.C. No. 3506 of 1990 (Annexure 12), the authority dismissed his appeal vide Annexure 13. Thereafter the petitioner filed a memorial dt. 21.7.1991 (Annexure 14) under Rule 117(1) of the Statute of O.U.A.T. Inspite of the assurance by the Vice Chancellor, Mr. I.C. Mohapatra, and the reminders, the petitioner's grievance was not attended to for which he has challenged the Annexure 7 and 13 on the ground that the disciplinary authority cannot differ in regard to punishment suggested by the Enquiring Officer and impose a higher punishment without assigning any reason, violation of natural justice for non supply of documents and the punishment for reduction in rank from initial appointment to be wrong.

(3.) MR . R.B. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner criticized the order of punishment (Annexure 7 and 13) on the ground of non supply of document, incapacity of the disciplinary authority to differ from the suggestion recommended by the Enquiring Officer along with the reduction of rank relying on O.J.C. No. 476 of 1987 (Dr. Dukhishyam Acharya v. O.U.A.T. and Ors.) disposed on 21.7.1987 and in Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa and Ors., 53 (1982) CLT 102. In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties Mr. Mishra and Mr. G.A.R. Dora have supported the order of the authorities. According to them, the disciplinary authority can very well inflict a punishment other than the punishment recommended by the Enquiring Officer according to the Statute 112(vi) of the Statute of O.U.A.T. The punishment has been inflicted under the Statute of O.U.A.T., which shall be called as 'Statute' hereinafter.