UDIT KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Technician of Sambalpur University, has filed this application to quash the order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure-11) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing on him punishment of dismissal from service and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.12.2000, Annexure-14.

(2.) The facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner entered into service as a Technician of Sambalpur University on 2.4.1984. Pursuant to a news item published in Oriya dailies dated 10.6.1998 and 11.6.1998 relating to an ugly incident that took place on 19.5.1998 at University Guest House, the Registrar of the University directed the Officer-in-Charge of the Guest House to conduct an inquiry and submit his report. As a consequence thereof, the Officer-in-charge of the Guest House called for a report from the Manager of the Guest House and submitted the same to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Division), Sambalpur and the Vice-Chancellor of the University directed a detailed inquiry relating to the incident byone Mr. P. Patra, A.D.M-cum-Administrative Officer, VSS Medical College, Burla. During inquiry, statements of 13 persons were recorded on solemn affirmation and 32 documents were exhibited. Pursuant to the inquiry report, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as also three others, namely, Dr. Satya Narayan Pradhan, Sr. Lecturer, Department of Earth Science, Chittaranjan Tripathy, Manager of the Guest House and S.C. Paramguru, Khansama of University Guest House, Sambalpur and the following charges were framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-1 dated 23.7.1998.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the entire inquiry proceeding was vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, more particularly non-supply of the documents asked for by the petitioner as well as non-examination of material witnesses and above all non-supply of the inquiry report. He further submitted that the harshest punishment i.e., dismissal from service, imposed by the disciplinary authority, confirmed by the appellate authority being contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules, the same is liable to be quashed. To substantiate the allegation as to non-supply of documents, Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 , State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 , Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 , Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girija Shankar Pant and others, AIR 2001 SC 24 , and State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and others, AIR 2001 SC 343 .