S H RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoiced our extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the order, dated 8. 12. 1976 (Annexure -5) passed by the Government imposing penalty in a disciplinary proceeding; alternatively for the quashing of the appellate decision rejecting his appeal and for other reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner was the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer posted at the Girisola check -gate in the district of Ganjam. By order, dated 5. 4.1972 (Annexure -1) he was placed under suspension. After a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of negligence in the discharge of duties and recourse to malpractice, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. Five others who were also involved faced a joint enquiry which was entrusted to the Special Additional Commissioner of Commercial -taxes. The Government issued an order dated July 7, 1972 (Annexure -2) that the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 would be followed and the Government would function as the disciplinary authority. A set of charges was framed and the charge -sheet was served on the petitioner. The petitioner showed cause. The Enquiring Officer took evidence and submitted report to the Government. He exonerated the petitioner from seven charges. He found against him in respect of charge Nos. 2, 5 and 6. The petitioner was released from suspension and reinstated with effect from November 10, 1976. On December 8, 1976, the Government taking into account the enquiry report imposed the punishment of censure and directed that the period of suspension would be treated as such. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Minister. By order, dated May 18, 1977 (Annexure -7) he was informed that his, appeal was rejected. He submitted a memorial to the Governor. By Annexure -9 dated November 9, 1979 he was informed that his memorial was rejected.

(3.) IN the return submitted, the opposite parties while admitting that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, refuted the other allegations.