Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Narasimham, C. J. And Das, J.
BAISHNAB CHARAN DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 91 Of 1955
Decided On : OCTOBER 30, 1956
BAISHNAB CHARAN DAS V. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. - ARTICLE 311 - ORISSA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1930 - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1951 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 14, 310, 311 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - DISCRIMINATION - VALIDITY OF RULES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a gazetted officer in the Government of Orissa, was discharged from service following an enquiry conducted by the Administrative Tribunal under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951. The petitioner challenged the order of discharge on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity of representing his case personally before the Government, that the Government did not clearly state in the notice issued to him that they accepted the findings of the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal Rules offended Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the omission to state in the notice that the Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal was a mere irregularity that did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Finally, the Court held that the Tribunal Rules did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution, as the discrimination between gazetted and non-gazetted government servants was brought about by the option of the government servant concerned and not by the Tribunal Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the omission to state in the notice that the Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal was a material irregularity? 3. Whether the Tribunal Rules offended Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, because he was given a copy of the charges against him and was allowed to submit an explanation. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not request a personal hearing in his reply to the Government's notice. 2. The Court held that the omission to state in the notice that the Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal was a mere irregularity that did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, because the Government had in fact considered the findings of the Tribunal and had tentatively accepted the punishment recommended by the Tribunal. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal Rules did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution, because the discrimination between gazetted and non-gazetted government servants was brought about by the option of the government servant concerned and not by the Tribunal Rules.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the government of Orissa in the Development Department, No. 18238 dated 28-121954. discharging the petitioner from Government service with immediate effect.
( 2 ) THE petitioner entered Government service sometime in 1929 and after holding various posts was transferred as District Agricultural, Officer, Koraput, sometime in 1953. It was alleged that while holding that post he committed serveral irregularities and was also guilty of some corrupt practices. His case was referred to the Administrative Tribunal under Rule 4 (1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951, The Member in charge of the Tribunal framed several charges against the petitioner and copies of these charges were sent to the petitioner on 6-6-1953 by the Director of Agriculture and Food production, Orissa. and he was called upon to furnish his explanation to the tribunal. He submitted has explanation in due course, and the Member then held an elaborate enquiry and came to a finding that he was guilty of most of the charges. By his order dated 28-4-1954 the Member observed that the charges were serious and recommended the dismissal of the petitioner from Government service. His report was submitted to Government and Government in the Cabinet department, in their memo No. 663 dated 11-5-1954 sent a copy of his report to the petitioner and called upon him to show cause, by 12-6-1954, as to why the punishment recommended against him should not be inflicted. The petitioner then submitted another explanation to Government in which he not only challenged the correctness of the findings of the Member in charge of the Tribunal but also gave reasons for not imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal. His explanation was considered in due course and the Government of Orissa in the Development department by their aforesaid order dated 28-12-1954 discharged him from government service with immediate effect.
( 3 ) THE findings of fact arrived at by the Member in charge of the Tribunal were rightly not challenged before us. The charges that were framed against the petitioner were very elaborate and full particulars in support of the charges were clearly mentioned. The enquiry also appears to have been conducted in a very elaborate manner and the Member has written a lenghty order giving reasons in support of his findings. On receipt of his report Government called upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment recommended, namely dismissal, may not be imposed, and after scrutinising the explanation submitted by the petitioner decided to impose the lesser punishment of discharge from Government service. Thus, the provisions ofart311 of the Constitution ap-pear to have been fully complied with.
( 4 ) MR. Chatterji's main arguments in support of this petition may be summarised as follows: (1) The petitioner was not given an opportunity of representing his case personally before Government. (2) In the notice underart311 issued to the petitioner by Government on 11-5-1954 it was not clearly stated that Government, after independent scrutiny, accepted the finding of fact arrived at by the Member in charge of the Tribunal, (3) The provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative tribunal) Rules 1951 offend article 14 of the Constitution.
( 5 ) FOR appreciating these arguments it is necessary to describe briefly the statutory provisions dealing with the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against government servants. The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Classification Rules) contained detailed provisions about the various classes of penalties that may be imposed on a government servant (Rule 49), the procedure to be followed in holding an enquiry against a Government servant (Rule 55) and the right of appeal against an order of punishment (Rules 66 and 57 ). The petitioner was
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
