SK. RAHEMAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as a Tractor Driver under the Director of Lift Irrigation, Orissa (opposite party No. 2). On 8 -11 -1974 he was deputed to work under the S.D.O., Lift Irrigation, Cuttack to work in the drought affected area of Athmallik). But on that very day he applied for leave upto 30 -11 -1974 on health ground which was supported by a medical certificate from the Clinical Tutor, Medicines, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack (Annexure -3). Again he applied for extension of leave from 1 -12 -1974 to 31 -12 -1974 on the very same ground. He reported to duty on 1 -1 -1975. Thereafter he was placed under suspension from 9 -5 -1975 till 10 -6 -1976 when his services were terminated. Charges were framed against him as per Annexure -9. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report as per Annexure -12 finding the Petitioner guilty of all the three charges, namely, wilful absence from Government duty, negligence in Government duty and disobedience of orders of the higher authorities and taking leave frequently. He recommended that three annual increments with cumulative effect from 1 -1 -1975 might be stopped and the period of leave availed by the Petitioner from 9 -11 -1974 to on 31 -12 -1974 at his own will might be treated as loss of pay. The Director of Lift Irrigation, Bhubaneswar, who is the appointing authority of the Petitioner, considered the inquiry report (Annexure -12) and accepted the same as per Annexure -13. He passed the following order:

(2.) MR . Dora, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are vague and they have not been substantiated. In fact, no inquiry has been conducted by the Enquiring Officer. He merely asked some questions to the Petitioner as per Annexure -11 and closed the inquiry. So there is no basis for coming to the conclusion that the charges have been proved. He also contended that after passing the orders as per Annexure -16 the further order passed in Annexure -17 awarding punishment to the Petitioner and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner is without jurisdiction. The Government has not considered the representation of the Petitioner in Annexure -18 in proper perspective and while rejecting the same by Annexure -19 no reason whatsoever has been indicated. Annexure -19 is not a speaking order and therefore should be quashed. In support of he contentions he relied on a decision reported in Jagannath Mohapatra v. Utkal University : 47 (1979) C.L.T. 5. He also relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court and submitted that the orders treating the period from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement as extraordinary leave, treating the period of suspension, i.e., till the date of termination from service as such and granting only subsistence allowance for that period and treating the period from 8 -11 -1974 to 31 -12 -1974 as loss of pay are not legal and justified.

(3.) THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.