ODISHA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IDCO TOWER, JANPATH, BHUBANESWAR Vs. BHUPAL SHANKAR TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent Act, Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 is directed against the final judgment dated 07.8.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2514 of 2004.

(2.) The short fact involved in the writ appeal is that the respondent was initially appointed as Light Vehicle Driver in IDCO Organisation and was posted at its Angul Division. The respondent was lastly posted in Bolangir Division of IDCO, Bolangir by the order of the Managing Director under communication No.17882 dated 15.10.2001. While the respondent was continuing as such, he was served with a set of charges with the allegations of gross negligence in duty and dis-obedience of orders of the higher authority, misconduct, showing willful in-subordination to the superior Controlling Officers, proved misbehavior to superior officers, colleagues and staff of the Corporation, submission of false vouchers with an intention to misappropriate Corporation funds, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to himself. Finding the respondent's explanation unsatisfactory, he was directed to face enquiry. Basing on the observation and recommendation of the Enquiring Officer, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the Departmental Proceeding with the final order of punishment dismissing the respondent from service as light vehicle Driver in the Corporation with immediate effect. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, preferred an Appeal which was also turned down with an order of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this High Court vide W.P. (C) No.2514 of 2004. While assailing the impugned order, the respondent contended that the enquiry against him was conducted in a manner contrary to OIIDC Employees' Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Regulations,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations,1996") and without giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in a meaningful and effective manner. The respondent also alleged that the Enquiring Officer considered the statements of the departmental witnesses recorded behind back of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority considering the inquiry report arrived at a proposed order of punishment even before furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority concluded the matter by observing a mere formality of supplying the copy of the inquiry report before award of the major penalty. The respondent alleged that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority runs contrary to Regulation,1996. The respondent also alleged that in spite of his taking several grounds, including the ground of violation of principle of natural justice in the matter of infliction of punishment, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority while refusing the prayer of the respondent for a personal hearing. Not only in total non-consideration of the grounds taken by the respondent but rejection of the appeal is also through a bald nonspeaking one lined order, as is clearly borne out from Annexure - 9 appended to the writ petition.

(3.) On their appearance, the present appellants by filing the counter affidavit, while denying all the allegations raised by the respondent against the corporation, specifically contended that the order passed by the appellants are not violative of Regulation 27 of the Regulation, 1996. The appellants refuting the allegations of the respondent submitted that the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice in the Enquiry proceeding is out and out false. The appellants further alleged that the respondent had a chequered career during his incumbency in IDCO at Badmal Division. In a Disciplinary Proceeding against him, he was earlier imposed with punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. There were serious charges involved in the second Departmental Proceeding concerning the present dispute. The Enquiry proceeding as well as the subsequent developments were conducted all in strict consonance with the provision contained in Regulation, 1996 as claimed by the appellants. Finally the appellants claimed that the allegation that the witnesses have been examined behind back of the respondent and that he has not been allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, is totally false. It is on the other hand claimed that the respondent himself signed the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiring Officer which is a clear indication of his not choosing to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It is claimed that the enquiry was not only conducted in a fair and impartial manner but the Disciplinary Authority also concluded the proceeding following all requirements of law. It is in these premises, the appellants claimed for dismissal of the writ petition.