DAYANIDHI RATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a grade II assistant is defunct Development Department now called as the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Orissa. A department proceeding was started against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 24 July 1963 and was dismissed from service on 24 October 1952. Against the said order of dismissal he filed an application (Original Jurisdiction Case No. 84 of 1958) before this Court and by an order dated 38 November 1964, a Division Bench of this Court held that the order of dismissal was invalid, inasmuch as the punishment proposed to be passed against him and of which he was given notice as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was lesser in degree than the punishment actually imposed upon him and consequently there was contravention of the mandatory provisions of that article. The Court therefore declared that the order of dismissal dated 21 October 1952 was void and insperative and that the petitioner continued to be in service as a grade II assistant in the Secretariat. [the judgment has been reported in Dayanidhi v. State I. L. R. 1955 Cuttack 53] On receipt of this order of the High Court a fresh notice was issued on the petitioner on 29 December 1954 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The previous suspension order dated 24 July 1952 was made retrospectively effective.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted his explanation in due course. but was eventually dismissed from service on 17 February 1955. As against this order of dismissal the petitioner filed Original Jurisdiction Case No. 300 of 1955. That petition was dismissed on 26 April 1956. The Court held that no contravention of any of the constitutional provision was made out. They declined to enter into the merits of the case and examine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges levelled against him. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court is Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1966-I L. L. J. 1 however, the Advocate General conceded that the petitioner was entitled to full salary from 24 October 1952 the date of the first dismissal order which previsely was set aside by the High Court till 29 October 1951 when a fresh notice was given the the order of suspension was passed and he was also held to be entitled to subsistence allowance from 29 October 1954, the date of the said notice, till 17 February 1955, the date of his second dismissal order.

(3.) THE petitioner again filed another (third) application (Original Jurisdiction Case No. 358 of 1956) mainly for two reliefs: