PRAKASH CHANDRA LENKA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his suspension dated 12.1.2000 and the order of his dismissal from service dated 24.6.2002 passed by the Administrator, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack. The petitioner has also challenged the inquiry proceedings.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days in the scale of pay of Rs. 780 -/1160/ - as revised from time to time vide office order dated 7.7.1989 passed by the Executive Officer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack. His ad hoc appointment was continued from time to time. He was also deputed to work as Assistant. Manager at Kathajodi Filling Station. As he was dealing with accounts matter in the office of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation at that time, he was directed to look after the accounts of the petrol pump in addition to his duties. In the meantime, a selection was held for appointment in Local Fund Services. The petitioner appeared in the test conducted by the Selection Board constituted under Rule 7 of the Orissa Local Fund Rules, 1975 and was declared selected. Accordingly, he was appointed as Junior Assistant and was posted in the Kendrapara Municipality vide order dated 17.5.1999 passed by the Director, Municipal Administration and Ex -Officio Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa, Housing and Urban Development Department on regular basis. But that order was modified by the State Government vide order dated 3.7.1999 and his posting was diverted to Cuttack Municipal Corporation again as Junior Assistant against the vacant post of Senior Assistant and he was allowed to continue there till March, 2000. The order reads as under : 'GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ORDER Bhubaneswar, Dated the 3,7.99 No. LFS (Estt) 13/99.23352/ HUD.. Sri Prakash Chandra Lenka, N.M.R. Junior Assistant, Cuttack Municipal Corporation whose services have been regularized vide this Department Order No. 16998/HUD., dt. 17.5.99 and posted as Junior Assistant to Kendrapara Municipality is, hereby, modified and he is re -posted to Cuttack Municipal Corporation as Junior Assistant in the vacant post of Senior Assistant and is allowed to continue temporarily till March, 2000. By order of Director Municipal Admn. B.P. Sirangi Under Secretary to Government. Memo No. 23533/HUD., Dated 3.7.99 Copy forwarded to the Chairperson/Executive Officer, Kendrapara Municipality/Cuttack Municipal Corporation, District Magistrate, Kendrapara/Cuttack/ Person concerned/ Guard file (5 spare copies) for information and necessary action. Sd/ - Under Secretary to Government. The rest of the facts being disputed, there is no necessity to mention those facts.

(3.) THE opposite parties have filed their counter, in which it has been averred that after regularization of the petitioner, he was posted under Kendrapara Municipality, but by order dated 3.7.1999 the posting order was modified at the request of the petitioner and he was reposted at Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack for a temporary period against the post of Senior Assistant. He was allowed to continue temporarily till March, 2000 by the State Government. On his posting to Cuttack Municipal Corporation he was transferred as Junior Assistant to Madhusudan Girls' High School, Khannagar under Cuttack Municipal Corporation, but he avoided to accept the said order. The Peons of the Municipal Corporation who were sent to serve the copy of the order had given their endorsement that the petitioner did not accept the order. Thereafter it was served through 'Latkazari' On 7.1.2000, the petitioner submitted an application before the then Chairman alleging therein that the Municipal Corporation staff are creating disturbances. However, the authority found misconduct on the part of the petitioner for which he was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 12.1.2000. Thereafter charges were framed against him and the charge -sheet was served on him. He denied the allegations and the disciplinary authority appointed the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry in presence of the petitioner. During enquiry, the petitioner refused to cross examine the witnesses which fact was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his order dated 18.7.2001. According to enquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. He was supplied with a copy of the inquiry report. He submitted his written defence, but the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department had called for records relating to the disciplinary proceeding vide order dated 29.8.2002 which was submitted to the Government. The petitioner without availing the remedy of statutory appeal, has directly filed the instant writ petition before this Court.