LAWS(ORI)-2016-12-45

STATE OF ORISSA Vs. U. CHANDRA SEKHAR PATRA

Decided On December 22, 2016
STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
V/S
U. Chandra Sekhar Patra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by State of Orissa assailing the order dated 23.2.1999 passed in O.A. No. 2306 of 1992 whereby and where under the order of penalty dated 22.9.1992 has been quashed putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC 471.

(2.) Fact of the case is that while the opposite party no.1 was working as a Special Officer, I.T.D.A., Thumba in the district of Ganjam from 13.12.1985 to 9.12.1985, he was proceeded departmentally for commission of some acts of misconduct, finally the proceeding was concluded, punishment imposed. Opposite party no.1 has challenged the order of punishment before the Tribunal on the ground that the departmental proceeding is fit to be quashed as also the order of punishment since copy of the enquiry report and the second show cause notice has not been supplied to him.

(3.) Opposite party no.1 had placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Ramzan (Supra). The Tribunal has quashed the order of punishment which is under challenge by the State of Orissa on the ground that the ratio laid down in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra) has been overruled by the subsequent judgment rendered by Honourable Supreme Court of its Constitution Bench in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors, (1993) 4 SCC 727. The ground taken by the opposite party no.1 is that while imposing punishment there is violation of principle of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority has not supplied copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice, hence he has not been provided with the adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend his case, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the order, hence it suffers with no infirmity. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.