STATE OF ORISSA Vs. M. RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the State-petitioner and Mr. J.K. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party. The State-petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 29.9.2005 passed in O.A. No. 180 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

(2.) The opposite party filed the aforesaid original application while functioning as Joint Secretary to Government of India, Urban Development Department, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, New Delhi assailing the Memorandum No. AIS/V-19/02-26415.AIS-I dated 19.8.2002 issued by the Special Secretary to Government of Odisha, G.A. Department, Bhubaneswar framing the article of charges and the Order No. 4716/AIS-I dated 18.2.2003 communicated to the opposite party-applicant, appointing the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, as the Enquiry Officer under Rule 8(2) of the AIS (D & A) Rules, 1969. The opposite party as applicant sought for quashing the article of charges communicated under Annexure-2 as well as for quashing the institution of enquiry and appointment of Enquiring Officer under Annexure-4 to the Original Application and for any other reliefs.

(3.) Facts involved in the case, in brief, are that the opposite party was previously posted as Vice-Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short 'BDA') under the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha during the period from May, 1995 to February, 1999. As Vice-chairman of BDA, he also functioned as Chairman of Development Plan and Building Promotion (for short 'DP & BP) Committee. It was alleged that while the opposite party was working as such, he recommended for approval of the plan of "Harapriya Apartment" over Plot Nos. 2727 and 2727/3743, without raising any objection with regard to non-submission of 'No Objection Certificate' from the Odisha State Electricity Board and Fire Prevention Officer as well as contravening the provisions of BDA Planning and Building (Standards) Regulations, 1993. It was further alleged against the opposite party that he also recommended for approval of the plan of a Multi Storied Building over Plot Nos. 110 and 244 of mouza Jayadev Vihar ignoring the provisions of Multi Storied Building Regulations, 1998. On the basis of such allegation, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the opposite party on 19.8.2002. On receiving the said memorandum of charges, he filed a written statement of defence on 30.10.2002. The grievance of opposite party before the Tribunal was that the disciplinary Authority did not consider his written statement of defence, but passed an order on 18.2.2003 in a routine mariner directing initiation of the departmental proceeding against him and simultaneously appointing the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal as the Enquiring Officer, merely because he denied all the charges. It was the case of opposite party that while directing initiation of the departmental proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority has not spoken any thing with regard to consideration of his defence for which he contended that there was total non-application of mind to his defence amounting to infraction of the principles of natural justice and also amounted to prejudice and mala fide. Referring to the letter dated 25.11.1981 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the opposite party submitted before the Tribunal that the disciplinary Authority has the inherent power to review and modify the article of charges or drop any or all the charges after receipt and examination oft he written statement of defence. However, this was not adhered to in the case of opposite party.