STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BIRENDRA MOHAN PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Orissa is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned fourth Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack decreeing the Plaintiff's suit.

(2.) SOMETIME in 1964, the State Government decided to set up a Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1951 to inquire and make a report over the students' agitation in the State and Mr. Justice Barman of this Court was nominated to head the Commission. The Plaintiff at that time was working as Standing Counsel of the Vigilance Department of the State. On 10th of November, 1964, under Ext. 1, the Inspector -General of Police in response to a radio message of 9th November wrote to the Additional Secretary to Government in the Home Department recommending the appointment of the Plaintiff as State's lawyer for the Commission. On 20th of February, 1965, under Ext. 2, the Home Secretary informed the Inspector General that Government have decided to appoint the Plaintiff to represent the State Government before the Commission of inquiry and formal orders of Government would be issued soon. He therefore, requested the Inspector General to go ahead in processing the matter. A copy of Ext. 2 was communicated to the Plaintiff. In Ext. 1, the Inspector General had indicated:

(3.) THE evidence in this case is more or less one -sided. Plaintiff examined 3 witnesses, being the then Legal Remembrancer (p. w. 1), the then Inspector General of Police (p. w. 2) and himself (p. w. 3) and exhibited series of documents on his side. On the defence side, the Superintendent of the Law Department was examined as D.W. 1. No documents were exhibited.