UDAYANATH SAHU Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the head teacher In Manibandha upper primary school within the Jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Bolgarh, In the district of Purl. Eight charges were levelled against him on 18 May 1964 by Sri C. S. Pattnayak, Chairman, Bolgarh Panchayat Samiti and the Block Development Officer. These charges broadly related to misappropriation of the funds, non-observance of the leave rules, not handing over articles as per the old stock register and gross misbehaviour towards the Sub-Inspector of schools. The petitioner submitted an explanation specifically denying the charges. The petitioner averred that no enquiry was held Into the charges without giving any reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself he was discharged from service by an order of the chairman, zilla parishad, on 27 February 1965. The order communicated by the Block Development Officer was in the following terms: Yon are discharged from services as per the order of the Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Purl, communicated?vide memorandum No. 271, dated 18 January 1965. Your pay la forfeited with effect from August 1964. A copy of the order along with the comments of Chairmen, Panchayat Samiti, Bolgarh, thereon is enclosed herewith for your Information. Please make over charge to Sri Hitakar Mohapatra, teacher, Immediately. A copy of this order was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of schools, Bolgarh. He was requested to prepare pay bill up to the end of July 1964.

(2.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4 who are the Chairman, Bolgarh Panchayat Samiti, Block Development Officer, Bolgarh and the State of Orissa. The Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Furl (opposite party 1), filed a counter-affidavit. The gist of the counter-affidavit is that after receipt of the explanation the chairman of the panchayat samiti made an enquiry Into the charges and submitted a report to the chairman, zilla parishad, on 2 July 1964 finding the petitioner guilty on almost all the charges and recommending necessary steps to be taken against him. While this report was pending consideration by the opposite party 1 he received a further report from opposite party 2 on 14 December 1964 Intimating him that the petitioner approached opposite party 2 with a resignation letter for being forwarded to opposite party 1. With necessary endorsement opposite party 2 sent the resignation letter to opposite party 1 through the petitioner, who did not attend the school thereafter as reported by the chairman of the school managing committee on 11 December 1964. Opposite party 1 passed the Impugned order of discharge after taking Into consideration the reports of the chairman, panchayat samiti, the papers relating to the proceeding and all materials Including the explanation to the charges. Opposite party 1 gave a direction to forfeit the petitioner's pay from 1 August 1964 as be was not attending school since that day. A personal hearing was not considered necessary In the circumstances of the case.

(3.) SRI Mohanti, appearing for the chairman of the zilla parishad, frankly stated that on the basis of the counter-affidavit and the annex-urea filed by the chairman, zilla parisbad, he cannot contend that there was an enquiry In the presence of the petitioner after an explanation was submitted by him. We have carefully gone through all the documents and affidavits on behalf of the parties. It appears that the chairman of the panchayat samiti held an enquiry into the charges without giving any notice to the petitioner. Though certain witnesses were examine d In support of the charges, the petitioner was given no opportunity to cross-examine them. He was not called upon to cite defence witnesses, In support of his case. He was not also given opportunities to present his arguments on the evidence taken.