LAWS(ORI)-1959-8-3

RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 25, 1959
RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHURY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Sub Deputy Collector and Anchal Adhikari of the Government of Orissa, challenging the validity of the order of the Government, in RevenueDepartment Resolution No. Con-l/58-21-R (C.S.) dated 25-1-1958, dismissing him from Government service.

(2.) While the petitioner was working as Anchal Adhikari at Kudala from 16-121952 to 27-8-1954 he was placed under suspension on charges of corruption and misconduct in the discharge of his official duties. His case was referred to the sole member Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under the provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The said Tribunal framed six charges against him and proceeded with the enquiry in respect of all these charges. At the commencement of the enquiry a senior officer of the Revenue Department was co-opted by the Tribunal as an assessor to assist in enquiry. The assessor worked with the Tribunal till the recording of the entire evidence against the delinquent public servant, but when the petitioner examined witnesses in his defence the assessor's assistance was dispensed with. The enquiry was therefore completed by the sole member of the Tribunal and his findings were submitted to Government who accepted the same and dismissed the petitioner from service.

(3.) The sole question for consideration in this application is whether, after the Tribunal had once co-opted an assessor to assist it during the departmental enquiry, it was legal for the Tribunal to dispense with the assessor in the middle of the enquiry and complete the same un-aided by such an assessor. The petitioner, while submitting his explanation to the Government, made a grievance of this procedure adopted by the Tribunal, and the Government asked him to show how he was prejudiced by the absence of the assessor at the later stages of the enquiry. The petitioner gave some explanation which was, however, not accepted by the Government.