CHITTARANJAN TRIPATHY Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Manager of Guest House of Sambalpur University, challenges the inquiry report of the inquiring officer dated 26.4.2000 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing on him punishment of dismissal from service vide Annexure-15 dated 31.8.2000 and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority, vide order dated 19.12.2000, Annexure-17.

(2.) The facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner entered into service as a Care Taker of the Guest House of Sambalpur University in the year 1982. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Manager in the year 1997. 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, by one 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, U.K. Panigrahi, Technician, P.G. Department of Earth Science of Sambalpur University and S.C. Paramguru, Khansama of University Guest House, Sambalpur and the following charges were framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-2 dated 23.7.1998.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senor 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. Rath has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 2118, The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1974 SC 2335, State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 and Narayan Patnaik v. State of Orissa and others, 2009 (1) OLR 971. So far as non-examination of material witnesses, reliance has been placed on Ministry of Finance and another v. S.B. Ramesh, AIR 1998 SC 853, Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and others, (2008) 15 SCC 306, Hardwari Lai v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 277. So far as non-supply of inquiry report, reliance has been placed on Punjab National Bank and others v. K.K. Verma, AIR 2011 SC 120, Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471, Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2713, Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 SC 3734.