BENUDHAR MOHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application assails the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 30.11.2004 passed in O.A. No.1009 of 2002 directing further inquiry in a departmental proceeding.

(2.) THE petitioner while working as a Primary Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, INS Chilika, was served with a memorandum of charges through the Principal of the said school on 11.6.1991 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of the said charges. He submitted his reply to the charges and the inquiry continued for almost eight years. The proceeding having not been completed in spite of passage of several years, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ application and the said writ application was disposed of directing the authorities to complete the departmental proceeding within a month from the date of receipt of the order. The proceeding having not been completed within the time granted by this Court, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ application. The said writ application was disposed of on 25.11.1998 holding that the direction having been already passed in the earlier writ application for early completion of disciplinary proceeding, no further order is necessary. However, the disciplinary proceeding was completed in a haste after the second writ application was disposed of and steps were being taken for imposing penalty. Apprehending imposition of major penalty, the petitioner again approached this Court in O.J.C. No.2467 of 1999 and the Central Administration Tribunal having been constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, the writ application was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as O.A. No.86 of 1999. During pendency of the original application, on the basis of the inquiry report penalty was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 6.12.1999 and, therefore the aforesaid O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the order of punishment. The appellate authority having dismissed the appeal on 13.6.2001, the present original application was filed by the petitioner challenging he punishment. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses, there was insufficiency of materials in order to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and, accordingly, directed for further inquiry by quashing the order of punishment. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, this writ application has been filed.

(3.) IT appears from the impugned judgment that the petitioner raised two contentions. Firstly, that the copy of the charge memo contained an annexure listing some documents on the basis which, charges were framed but the said documents were not supplied to him in spite of request. The second contention raised before the Tribunal was that the photo copy letter allegedly written by him to one Vishwanath Das along with English translation thereof had not been made available to him and, therefore he could not defend himself properly. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment came to the following conclusion :