CHAIRMAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S ADINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 18.3.93 of the-learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 94 (K)/91, quashing the report dated 23.4.90 of the Enquiry Committee, order of suspension dated 30.6.90 and the memorandum of charges dated 11.9.91 against the respondent.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the respondent was serving as Superintending engineer in the establishment of Development Authority, Nagaland. In respect of some irregularities in additional works in Nagaland House, Calcutta, an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report on 23.4.90. In the said report, the Enquiry Committee found that in awarding the contract, signing of the work order and making payment, there were gross irregularities on the part of the respondent. The said Enquiry Committee also recommended that the respondent be immediately dismissed and a criminal case be filed against him. After receipt of the said report of the Enquiry Committee, the respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 30.6.90 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and thereafter, on 11.9.91 a memorandum of charges was served on the respondent Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the appellants, the respondent filed Civil Rule No. 94 (K)/91 before the Kohima Bench of this Court and by the impugned judgment dated 18.9.93, the learned single Judge quashed the report of Enquiry Committee, order of suspension and the memorandum of charges.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, took us through para-6 of the impugned judgment off the learned single Judge to show that the report of the Enquiry Committee as well as order of suspension dated 30.6.90 was quashed by the learned single Judges on the ground that reasonable opportunity had not been given to the respondent as required by Article, 311 (2) of the Constitution before the findings in the report of the Enquiry (2)of the Constitution before the findings in the report of the Enquiry Committee were recorded and the order of suspension was passed against the respondent. Mr. Mishra submitted that the Enquiry committee conducted only a preliminary enquiry and the inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings were to take place pursuant to memorandum of charges dated 11.9.91 served on the respondent. Accordingly, the learned single Judge was mot correct in taking a view that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution had not been followed. According to Mr Mishra reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution would have been given to the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the memorandum of charges dated 11.9.91 served on the respondent.