MURALIDHAR MISHRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined service in the Collectorate at Dhenkanal as a lower division clerk in the year 1960. In the following year, he came to serve in the Office of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate at Dhenkanal on deputation and in course of time was absorbed in the said office. By 1971, he was working as Nazir in the office of the Additional Munsif and Sub -Divisional Magistrate at Athmalik within the district of Dhenkanal. While so working, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges:

(2.) THE Registrar of the Civil Court, Cuttack has filed a counter affidavit wherein the proceeding and the punishment have been justified. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder thereafter.

(3.) PETITIONER 's counsel takes the stand that when some of the charges have not been established he should not have been visited with such a serious and disproportionate punishment as removal from service. Petitioner had put in only eleven years of service and had a long career. Many of the charges having not been established, the punishing authority should reconsider the nature and quantum of punishment which would be adequate in the light of the charged position. We do not think, such a submission is tenable. In the case of State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushun, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 779, the Supreme Court while reversing a decision of this Court stated: