DINABANDHU RATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order dated 14-3-1957, passed by the Collector of Cuttack, dismissing the petitioner from Government service. An appeal against the Order of dismissal was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner on 17-8-1958.

(2.) THE petitioner was a permanent Office Superintendent of Cuttack Collectorate. On 20-11-1949 the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Orissa, sent two decrees, for a total sum of Rs. 22000/- obtained by the State of Orissa against (1) Sri Gopabandhu Das and (2) Sri Chandra Kisore Das, to the Collector for execution and realisation of the decretal amount. No effective steps were taken in the Collectorate for filing execution petitions with the result that the execution of the decrees got time barred. This led to a preliminary investigation to fix the primary responsibility on the various ministerial officers of Cuttack Collectorate for the loss of so much money to Government. A Deputy Collector named Shri B. C. Patnaik made the preliminary investigation and in his report dated 17-2-1953 submitted to the Collector (Annexure B) he fixed the responsibility primarily on the Sadar Kanungo Shri Krushna Mohan Das (who was conveniently dead by that time) and also, to some extent, on other ministerial officers. He did not directly apportion any blame on the Office Superintendent. THE then Collector of Cuttack (Shri R. G. Das) appears to have accepted the findings of Sri Patnaik and reported the matter to the President of the Board of Revenue, Sri N. Senapati, who, however, was not satisfied with the report. He drafted a regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner Sri Dinabandhu Rath and two clerks of the Cuttack Collectorate named Nabakishore Mohanty and Sahadeb Das and also wrote to the Collector demiofficially directing him to place them under suspension, conduct the proceedings and punish them himself. A copy of this demi-official letter (No 661 PBR dated 29-9-1953), addressed to the Collector, is reproduced below as some argument was addressed on the contents of that letter (Ann. T) : "D.O. No. 661 PBR. Cuttack, 29-9-1953. My dear Anantha Krishnan, I have sent you separately a copy of my report on the loss to Government caused by failure on the part of the Collector of Cuttack to execute certain decrees. I have have drafted proceedings against Sri Dinabandhu Rath, Office Superintendent, Sri Nabakishore Mohanty, clerk and Sri Sahadeb, Clerk. You should sign the proceedings and serve it on them. You should also place them under suspension. You should conduct the proceedings and punish them yourself. Government hope that the proceedings will be conducted expeditiously. Sri V. V. Anantha Krishnan Yours sincerely. I.A.S. Collector of Cuttack Sd. N. Senapati. 29-9-53. .. .. .. .. .. ... On receipt of Mr. Senapati's letter, the Collector Mr. Anantha Krishnan framed two charges against the petitioner. THEy are as follows : "(1) You persistently neglected your most important duty, viz., inspection of the work of the Assistants in the Collectorate's Office including the Munshikhana where execution of decrees is being dealt with; and your negligence has resulted in a loss of about Rs. 22,000/- to Government due to non-execution of decrees against Sri Gopabandhu Das and Chandra Kishore Das sent to the Collectorate by the Agricultural Department for execution and which decrees got time barred by limitation. 2. You suppressed information from the Collector relating to the loss of decrees, against Chandra Kishore Das and two others which is a grave dereliction of duty." (vide annexure D). On receipt of the charges, the petitioner requested the Collector to give him copies of the statements of some of the ministerial officers of the Collectorate recorded during the preliminary investigation made by Sri B. C. Patnaik and also of some other papers. He also prayed for time to go through and take notes from certain relevant files of the Cuttack Collectorate. His prayer was substantially allowed by the Collector by his order dated 31-12-1953 (Annexure G) and then he submitted a lengthy explanation on 30-1-1954 (Annexue I).

(3.) IT is not the function of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to examine whether the materials on record would be taken as sufficient by another authority to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and whether the punishment was too severe in view of the fact that the charges dealt only with negligence in the discharge of his duties and did not involve any element of corruption. These are matters to be considered by the superior officers of Government. IT is still open to the petitioner to file a memorial to the Government for modification of the punishment. We are satisfied, however that the departmental enquiry against him was conducted properly and he was given adequate opportunities to defend himself as required by law.