BAISHNAB CHARAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the government of Orissa in the Development Department, No. 18238 dated 28-121954. discharging the petitioner from Government service with immediate effect.

(2.) THE petitioner entered Government service sometime in 1929 and after holding various posts was transferred as District Agricultural, Officer, Koraput, sometime in 1953. It was alleged that while holding that post he committed serveral irregularities and was also guilty of some corrupt practices. His case was referred to the Administrative Tribunal under Rule 4 (1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951, The Member in charge of the Tribunal framed several charges against the petitioner and copies of these charges were sent to the petitioner on 6-6-1953 by the Director of Agriculture and Food production, Orissa. and he was called upon to furnish his explanation to the tribunal. He submitted has explanation in due course, and the Member then held an elaborate enquiry and came to a finding that he was guilty of most of the charges. By his order dated 28-4-1954 the Member observed that the charges were serious and recommended the dismissal of the petitioner from Government service. His report was submitted to Government and Government in the Cabinet department, in their memo No. 663 dated 11-5-1954 sent a copy of his report to the petitioner and called upon him to show cause, by 12-6-1954, as to why the punishment recommended against him should not be inflicted. The petitioner then submitted another explanation to Government in which he not only challenged the correctness of the findings of the Member in charge of the Tribunal but also gave reasons for not imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal. His explanation was considered in due course and the Government of Orissa in the Development department by their aforesaid order dated 28-12-1954 discharged him from government service with immediate effect.

(3.) THE findings of fact arrived at by the Member in charge of the Tribunal were rightly not challenged before us. The charges that were framed against the petitioner were very elaborate and full particulars in support of the charges were clearly mentioned. The enquiry also appears to have been conducted in a very elaborate manner and the Member has written a lenghty order giving reasons in support of his findings. On receipt of his report Government called upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment recommended, namely dismissal, may not be imposed, and after scrutinising the explanation submitted by the petitioner decided to impose the lesser punishment of discharge from Government service. Thus, the provisions ofart311 of the Constitution ap-pear to have been fully complied with.