Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale
State of Orissa & Anr. ....... Appellants
Vs.
Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr. ....... Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8509-8510 OF 2003
Decided on : October 19, 2010.
(b) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Charge memo – Contention that charge memo ought to be quashed on merits without reserving to the State to proceed in accordance with law – Correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority – Courts normally do not quash charge sheet prior to enquiry on factual score – Contention rejected. (Para 9)
(1994) 3 SCC page 357 – Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 r/w section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Stay by High Court on any action pursuant to charge memo – Typographical error in charge memo corrected during stay period – No intention to violate stay order – Bona fide step – High Court justified in closing contempt proceeding – High Court, however, not justified in expressing disapproval and issuing warning senior officers of State Government. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent was charged with impersonation.
He challenged the charge memo before CAT which issued notice but did not give any relief.
High Court quashed the said charge memo.
Finding of the Court:
There is no illegality in bona fide correcting typographical errors in a charge memo eve during period of stay.
Result:
Civil Appeal No. 8509/2003 dismissed and Civil Appeal No.8510/2003 allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.
In the year 2002 the first respondent, an officer belonging to IAS cadre, was working as a Special Secretary, Planning and Coordination Department, Government of Orissa. The State Government issued a charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 charging him as follows :
"Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in their order dated 17.1.2002 in Misc. case No.238 of 2001 (arising out of original criminal Misc. Case No.578 of 2000 - P.K. Sahoo vs. S.M. Patnaik & Ors.) have been pleased to dispose of the matter with regard to stay with a direction to the State Government in G.A. Department to file counter before the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack. Sri Debasis Das, Addl. Government Advocate was to supply the free copy of the said order dated 17.1.2002 to G.A. Department for compliance of the orders of Hon'ble court.
On 22.1.2002 Sri Sangram Keshari Mishra, IAS, Special Secretary to Government, P & C Department contacted Sri Debasis Das, Additional Govt. Advocate over phone impersonating himself as Special Secretary to Government, G.A. Department and requested to supply of the order dated 17.1.2002 to him. Sri Das requested Sri Mishra to come over to his office at 10.30 a.m. to receive the order. Accordingly, Sri Mishra reached his office and Sri Das handed over the said order to Shri Mishra. The order is neither related to P & C Department where Sri Mishra works nor Sri Mishra felt it necessary to send the order to G.A. Department after receipt of the same from Sri Debasis Das. The post of the Special Secretary, G.A. Department remained vacant during the period from 11.1.2002 to 6.2.2002. During such period Sri Mishra has shown grave misconduct by posing and impersonating himself as Special Secretary to Government, G.A. Department over phone to the Addl. Govt. Advocate and while appearing before him in person. He has obtained the said order dated 17.1.2002 from the Addl. Government Advocate in an illegal and unfair manner posing himself as Special Secretary, G.A. department with malafide intention. He has thus violated the provisions under Rule 3 of ASI (Conduct) Rules, 1968." (emphasis supplied) The first respondent challenged the said charge memorandum in Original Application No. 336/2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack. The Tribunal issued notice regarding admission on 21.5.2002 but did not grant interim relief sought for. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa on 7.6.2002 (OJC No. 6001/2002) for declaring the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 to be void and for an interim direction not to proceed in pursuance of the said charge memorandum, pending disposal of his application before the Tribunal and the writ petition before the High Court. On 12.6.2002 the High Court issued notice in regard to the said writ petition and stayed the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002. When the said interim stay was in operation, Government of Orissa issued a corrigendum dated 22.6.2002 to the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002, amending the words "Misc.Case No.238 of 2001 "wherever it appears by the words "Misc. Case No. 236 of 2001".
3. The first respondent initiated contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition No.62/2002) alleging that issue of the corrigendum dated 22.6.2002 when there was interim stay of the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 amounted to violation of the interim order and interference with the administration of justice.
4. The High Court heard the writ petition and the contempt petition filed by the first respondent and disposed them by orders dated 6.12.2002. By the order disposing the writ petition, the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 and corrigendum dated 26.2.2002 were quashed with an observation that as a consequence OA No. 336 of 2002 pending before the Tribunal also stood disposed of with a direction to Tribunal to close the said O.A. The contempt petition was disposed of by closing the contempt proceedings w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
