BRAJA KISHORE DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a former member of the Orissa State Judicial Service, challenging the validity of the order of the Government of Orissa, in the law Department, in their letter No. 7110-C dated 1st november 1962, directing the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was duly absorbed as a Munsif in the Orissa Judicial Service and was, in due course, promoted to officiate as Subordinate Judge in 1955. He was transferred to Sambalpur in June, 1957. While he was working there, various allegations of corruption, failure to discharge his duties properly, and other acts of misconduct, came to the notice of his superior authorities : and there was also a resolution passed by the Sambalpur Bar Association against his work. Preliminary enquiries were made into these allegations, and then, after his transfer to Koraput he was placed under suspension on the 9th November 1959 by the District Judge of Koraput under the directions of the High Court and a list of charges framed against him, was also given to him (Annexure A ). The petitioner gave his replies to the charges and further informed Government in the law Department that he desired to exercise his option given by Rule 5 (1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal rules), of having the Departmental enquiry against him conducted by the member of the Administrative Tribunal. This option was duty recognised and the case against him was sent to the Tribunal for holding a departmental enquiry under the said Rules. The Tribunal recast the original charges, added some new charges and gave him a copy of those amended and new charges. Then it held an enquiry in which the evidence of witnesses was recorded in his presence, and he was also given an opportunity to cross-examine them and to adduce evidence on his behalf. But his prayer for being represented by a counsel was rejected. The case against the petitioner was conducted by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After completing the departmental enquiry, the learned Tribunal submitted its report on the 1st June 1960, exonerating the petitioner in respect of some of the major charges, but holding him guilty of the charge of failure to discharge his duties as a Judicial Officer properly. The main acts of delinquency of which the petitioner was found guilty, were these :

(3.) ON the basis of the report of the Administrative Tribunal, Government tentatively decided, with the concurrence of the High Court, that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service and he was given a further opportunity to show cause why the proposed punishment may not be passed against him. A copy of the report of the Tribunal was also sent to him. He showed cause on the 31st July, 1962, but this was not accepted by the Government and after consulting the High Court the Government passed orders on the 1st November, 1962 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.