GOVIND CHANDRA ROUT Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) e petitioner who is a Joint Director of Industries has challenged the order dated 11th July 1975 (Annexure-1) of the Government of Orissa in the Industries Department by which a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him in a disciplinary proceeding.

(2.) On 19-10-70 charges of misconduct on five counts were served on the petitioner, it was alleged that during the period from 1955 to 1962 he had misconducted himself in violating the provisions of the Orissa Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1959 (1) in acquiring lands to the extent of 2.27 acres in the name of his wife Srimati Bhagabati Rout from different persons of village Utamapur without previous knowledge of the prescribed authority, (2) in mortgaging lands measuring 0.600 acre at Cuttack town which stood in his name and the building thereon which stood in the name of his wife to the Orissa State Financial Corporation Limited, Cuttack without previous sanction of the prescribed authority, (3) in leasing out 2.27 acres of land as mentioned above to one 'Mani Charan Routray on annual rent of Rs. 1000/- without previous knowledge of the prescribed authority, (4) % in furnishing to Government incorrect and misguiding information in his property statement dated 3-12-63 and (5) in indirectly engaging himself in a business of bricks without previous sanction of the Government. On 16-11-70 the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. The charges were enquired into by the Member, Administrative Tribunal who is an experienced District Judge. At the enquiry 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the State. The petitioner cross-examined 8 witnesses and declined to cross-examine the other witnesses. He also declined to examine any witness in support of his defence but produced two documents, which were marked as exhibits. Being called upon by the Tribunal the petitioner submitted his final explanation on 26-12-73. On 3-1-74 the Tribunal submitted its report of enquiry wherein it came to the conclusion that excepting the charge of furnishing incorrect and misguiding information in the property statement all other charges were duly proved against the petitioner. It recommended for imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement but the State Government took a lenient view and imposed the penalty of withholding three increments of pay with cumulative effect vide Annexure-1.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order withholding increments with cumulative effect has the effect of putting him to a lower state in the time-scale of his salary which is described as a major penalty in the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 and that no opportunity having been allowed to him to show cause against the proposed penalty the statutory requirements under sub-rule (10) of rule 15 were not complied with.