GOKHA BEHERA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to set aside the notification dated 10.12.2003 (Annex. -10) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service after holding the departmental proceedings and further to reinstate him in service with back wages.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, while working as a Munsif in 1993 in the judgeship of Cuttack, decided three suits on priority basis in which it was alleged that one of his relatives had been the plaintiff. On receiving the complaint this Court on administrative side called for the record and issued a show cause to the petitioner initiating a preliminary inquiry. The petitioner filed a show cause dated 18.12.1993 (Annex. -2) explaining that the allegations were false and none of the parties in the suit was his relative. After considering petitioners reply this Court decided to initiate the departmental proceedings against him. The petitioner was put under suspension in the year 1995 while he was working at Malkangiri in the judge ship of Koraput. Charge sheet dated 8.2.1996 (Annex. -3) was served upon the petitioner. Petitioner filed written statement dated 24.4.1996 (Annex.4) in defence denying all the charges levelled against him. However, after considering the same this Court appointed Shri G. Narasimham, the then District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack as the Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report. This Court considered the report of the Inquiry Officer, but it did not accept the same. Rather it had taken a decision to hold de novo inquiry and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Joint Registrar of this Court vide letter dated 18.12.1998. By the said order suspension of the petitioner was revoked as the de novo inquiry was likely to take some time. Shri N.P. Rout, the then Registrar (I and E) of this Court was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry and submitted the report on 3.5.2000 (Annex -7) by which the charges were found proved against the petitioner. Second show cause dated 29.11.2000 (Annex. -8) was issued to the petitioner and petitioner submitted his reply dated 8.1.2001 (Annex.9). Same was considered and this Court resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service. Recommendation so made was accepted by the Government and accordingly, notification dated 10.12.2003 (Annex. -10) dismissing him from service was issued. Hence this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition contending that even in the absence of statutory rules there cannot be any bar on the disciplinary authority to initiate a second/de novo inquiry if it is satisfied that there has been some lacuna in holding the earlier inquiry. In case the principles of natural justice or the procedure prescribed in the statute has not been followed, there may be miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the disciplinary authority always has the right to order de novo inquiry. More so, the earlier inquiry report has not been accepted nor acted upon. Proceedings stand concluded only when the final order of punishment or exoneration is passed by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the earlier inquiry has not been conducted properly. Therefore, the High Court took the decision to hold a fresh inquiry. No fault can be found in the direction for holding second/de novo inquiry. The earlier preliminary enquiry was abandoned by the Court in 1998 and de novo enquiry was directed to be held. Petitioner participated in the enquiry without raising any objection. The same stood concluded vide impugned order of punishment dated 10.12.2003. Petitioner is estopped by his conduct to raise the issue of holding the de novo enquiry because of his participation without protest for a period of six years and he cannot be permitted to take the issue at such a belated stage. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.