LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-68

PRAHALLAD PADHI Vs. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE

Decided On March 31, 2009
Prahallad Padhi Appellant
V/S
Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the State authorities to put Opposite Party No. 5 under suspension and further to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for ill -treating his domestic servant who committed suicide and in pursuance of the reporting made by the Petitioner, a criminal prosecution has been lodged against him.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner claims himself to be a Pressman and a social activist and is publisher of a local Oriya newspaper in the name and style 'Saitan' at Patnagarh. He reported a news -item that a Class -IV ill -health employee was being harassed and exploited by his superior officer intentionally and deliberately. Therefore, due to exploitation the said employee committed suicide leaving a suicidal hand note. An FIR was lodged and Opposite Party No. 5 was arrested by the local police and was inside the custody for at least one week. However, no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him nor he was suspended as per O.C.S. (CCA.) Rules, which required that under the said Rules a Government servant who is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE matter was heard earlier on 19th March, 2009 and as the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court regarding the locus -standi of the Petitioner, the case was adjourned for 24th March, 2009. Even on that date adjournment was sought to prepare this case and therefore it was listed 30th March, 2009. Even on that date also Learned Counsel for the Petitioner asked for time to prepare the case further, but we refused to accede to the request as the petition should be filed after preparing the case and in spite of fact that matter had been adjourned twice to facilitate the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to answer the quarry regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition itself.