DURYODHAN SAMANTRAY Vs. SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letter patent appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 13.03.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.J.C. No.3131 of 1990 rejecting the application filed by the appellant as petitioner under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner had assailed his removal from service as illegal.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-appellant was that he entered into the service as general employee Watchman in the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar in December 1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1975. On 06.04.1988 a memorandum of charges was served on the petitioner asking him to file show-cause. The petitioner submitted his show-cause raising objection to the decision of the authority for initiating a disciplinary proceeding on the ground of failure to follow the due procedure. The present respondent no.5 as the Principal of School appointed a Court of Enquiry on 22.04.1988 and challenging the initiation of the proceeding, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the opposite party-respondent no.3. During pendency of the appeal, the Court of Enquiry commenced the proceeding and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation in relation to the charges leveled against him. It was further alleged that before completion of proceeding, the opposite party- respondent gave press statement in local daily newspapers expressing his personal opinion relating to memorandum of charges with the purpose of influencing the Court of Enquiry. On 19.07.1988 the Court of Enquiry submitted its findings holding the petitioner partially guilty of charge no.2 and guilty of all other charges. On being asked, the petitioner submitted his representation/reply against the findings of the Court of Enquiry raising several objections. Again on 22.08.1988 he submitted his explanation to the second show-cause notice indicating the infirmities in the proceeding. But, ignoring his explanation, the opposite party-respondent no.5 as the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal against him on 23.01.1989. The petitioner challenged the said order of punishment in appeal before the opposite party respondent no.2 and the appellate authority by order dated 26/27.09.1989 rejected the appeal but modified the order of 'dismissal' to 'removal' from service. The petitioner in the writ petition assailed the correctness and legality of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings as well as that of the appellate authority.

(3.) The petitioner assailed the findings on the following grounds: (i) the charges were vague in nature and hence unsustainable in law; (ii) before submission of explanation, the Court of Enquiry was appointed which was without jurisdiction; (iii) no document on the basis of which the charges were framed was supplied to the petitioner; (iv) the enquiry was conducted by the Court of Enquiry as per dictates of opposite party nos.4 and 5 in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice so also the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses; (v) one member of Court of Enquiry was changed by the opposite party no.5 without the knowledge of the petitioner and in violation of the disciplinary Rules; (vi) during pendency of the enquiry the Disciplinary Authority gave press statements in relation to a proceeding; (vii) without obtaining prior approval from the Chairman, L.B.A, the petitioner was dismissed arbitrarily by opposite party-respondent no.5.