CHANDRAMOHAN SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Sales Assistant under the Orissa State Handloom Corporation, has filed this application seeking to quash the order of punishment imposed in Annexure-4 dated 01.02.1996, by which the petitioner was removed from service with a further direction to recover a sum of Rs.1,35,083.50 and the period of suspension w.e.f. 26.08.1995 till the date of removal has been directed to be treated as such, and further seeks to quash the confirmation order of removal by the appellate authority in Annexure-5 dated 14.12.2001.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner, having been duly selected, joined as Attendant-cum-Watchman in Orissa State Handloom Corporation in the year 1977. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sales Assistant by the Managing Director of the Corporation w.e.f. 17.05.1982. The petitioner was posted at Odissi, Kantabanjhi Branch as Branch Manager and continued till 07.02.1988 and, then, he was transferred to Head Office of the Corporation at Bhubaneswar. While he was so continuing, vide letter dated 19.09.1988, the petitioner was called upon to explain about the shortage of Rs.1,13,509.60 in Odissi, Kantabanjhi Branch during the period from 01.04.1985 to 06.02.1988. Basing upon the same, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which was communicated to him on 05.02.1990. In compliance of the same, the petitioner submitted show cause reply on 27.02.1990 denying the allegations made against him. But, the authority terminated the services of the petitioner along with others vide letter dated 26.08.1992 complying Rule-20 of the Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Employees Service Rules, 1986 by paying one month salary. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Corporation stayed the order of termination vide its letter dated 05.09.1992 pending decision of the Board. The termination of the services of the petitioner and others was discussed in the 53rd Board's Meeting held on 01.10.1992 and 14.10.1992 in Agenda No.5 and it was decided that sufficient opportunity should be given to the employees to defend their case. It was further decided that the General Manager-cum-Secretary of the Corporation should be appointed as Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the General Manager has been appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 01.10.1992 to conduct the inquiry. Ultimately, the petitioner was removed from service vide letter dated 01.02.1996. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred writ application before this Court bearing OJC No. 7849 of 1996 and this Court disposed of the said writ application vide order dated 13.02.1998 granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority as per the rules. Consequentially, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected, pursuant to resolution dated 14.12.2001 in Agenda No.6, conforming the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, this application.

(3.) Mr. A. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that while imposing punishment of removal from service vide letter dated 01.02.1996 by the disciplinary authority, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, which is violative of principles of natural justice. More so, the office order merely indicates the punishment and no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner is liable for such punishment. Further, the appellate authority without any application of mind and assigning reasons confirmed the order of removal in a cryptic manner vide Annexure-5 dated 14.12.2001. Consequentially, it is contended that the order of punishment in Annexure-4 and confirmation thereof in appeal vide Annexure-5 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside.