BAIDHAR DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application under Articles 226 and 311 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner who was an organiser of the Craft School, Cuttack. He came to be appointed to such post in 1955, and while he was serving in such capacity, on 6-5-67 he was subjected to a departmental proceeding. Twelve charges were framed against him by the appointing authority and he was called upon to submit his explanation in respect of such charges. On 11-5-57, he applied for copies of statements of facts on which the charges were based and of documents referred to in the charges in order to be in a position to offer his explanation against the charges. As the copies were not supplied ultimately on 98-57 he offered his explanation mentioning therein that he had been handicapped in placing his explanation against the charges on account of the non-supply of the statements of facts and the documents which he had asked for. One Sri L. S. Panda, the Assistant Director of Industries, was appointed the enquiring officer. The enquiry continued for over three years. Two more enquiring officers in succession were appointed, and ultimately the last enquiring officer, Shri L. Dandapat submitted his report on 28-12-60. At the enquiry, 28 witnesses in support of the charges and 9 in support of the petitioners' defence were examined. 193 documents were exhibited. The disciplinary authority had nominated an Anticorruption inspector to present the case in support of the charges before him. The petitioner had, therefore, raised an objection to the conduct of the case by a prosecuting Inspector. The disciplinary authority by his order dated 17-7-58 rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner came up with an application for permission to have legal assistance in support of his defence, but the enquiring officer refused such request by his order dated 18-8-1958. After the enquiry was over, the petitioner was called upon to offer a second explanation against the charges, obviously on account of the fact that the documents had not been given to him and he might not have given a complete explanation on the earlier occasion. That explanation he gave on 9-2-61. On 5-562 the petitioner was called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment, and on 7-5-63 the Director of Industries passed the order of discharge from service. Of the twelve charges framed against the petitioner, the enquiring officer had found him guilty in respect of ten. The punishing authority found that two more charges had not been proved against the petitioner, and the punishment ultimately rested on the eight remaining charges framed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of discharge from service, the petitioner has come before this Court.

(2.) THE opposite parties have filed a a counter-affidavit wherein it has been contended that the petitioner had inspected some records and was allowed to have copies from them, and some other records were produced before the enquiring officer at the time of enquiry and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the basis of the documents. Therefore, the petitioner was not prejudiced in raising a proper defence. It was further asserted that the charges were not at all intricate or complicated, and the petitioner had not made out any special facts and circumstances for allowing the assistance of a legal practitioner.

(3.) TWO contentions were raised by Mr. Misra appearing for the petitioner. They are-