Back
1964 Supreme(Ori) 115
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And S. Barman, J.
BRAJA KISHORE DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Original Jurisdiction Case 179 Of 1963
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1964
C.K.Ghosh, S.C.Ghose, Vamanmurty
The State Government has the authority to pass the final order of punishment against a member of the Judicial Service, even though the High Court has the initial jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and hold departmental enquiries.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 235 - JUDICIAL SERVICE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - POWER TO INITIATE AND IMPOSE PUNISHMENT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT AND STATE GOVERNMENT - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - AMENDMENT OF CHARGES - DENIAL OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE - ADJOURNMENT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION - FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE - ANOMALY IN JUDICIAL REVIEW BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former member of the Orissa State Judicial Service, challenged the validity of the order of the Government of Orissa directing his compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner was found guilty of various acts of misconduct, including purchasing a car without obtaining prior permission, failing to discharge his duties properly as a Judicial Officer, and interfering in the course of cross-examination by lawyers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government had the authority to pass the final order of punishment, as they were the appointing authority, even though the High Court had the initial jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and hold departmental enquiries. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to amend or add to the charges against the petitioner, as the rules conferred wide jurisdiction on the Tribunal as regards the procedure to be followed during the enquiry. The Court further held that the denial of legal assistance, omission to supply the petitioner with copies of various documents, and omission to give him an adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination did not violate the rules of natural justice. The Court also found that the Tribunal's findings of guilt were based on ample evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government or the High Court had the authority to pass the final order of punishment against the petitioner. 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to amend or add to the charges against the petitioner. 3. Whether the denial of legal assistance, omission to supply the petitioner with copies of various documents, and omission to give him an adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination violated the rules of natural justice. 4. Whether the Tribunal's findings of guilt were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government had the authority to pass the final order of punishment, as they were the appointing authority, even though the High Court had the initial jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and hold departmental enquiries. 2. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to amend or add to the charges against the petitioner, as the rules conferred wide jurisdiction on the Tribunal as regards the procedure to be followed during the enquiry. 3. The denial of legal assistance, omission to supply the petitioner with copies of various documents, and omission to give him an adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination did not violate the rules of natural justice. 4. The Tribunal's findings of guilt were based on ample evidence.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application with costs.
NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a former member of the Orissa State Judicial Service, challenging the validity of the order of the Government of Orissa, in the law Department, in their letter No. 7110-C dated 1st november 1962, directing the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was duly absorbed as a Munsif in the Orissa Judicial Service and was, in due course, promoted to officiate as Subordinate Judge in 1955. He was transferred to Sambalpur in June, 1957. While he was working there, various allegations of corruption, failure to discharge his duties properly, and other acts of misconduct, came to the notice of his superior authorities : and there was also a resolution passed by the Sambalpur Bar Association against his work. Preliminary enquiries were made into these allegations, and then, after his transfer to Koraput he was placed under suspension on the 9th November 1959 by the District Judge of Koraput under the directions of the High Court and a list of charges framed against him, was also given to him (Annexure A ). The petitioner gave his replies to the charges and further informed Government in the law Department that he desired to exercise his option given by Rule 5 (1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal rules), of having the Departmental enquiry against him conducted by the member of the Administrative Tribunal. This option was duty recognised and the case against him was sent to the Tribunal for holding a departmental enquiry under the said Rules. The Tribunal recast the original charges, added some new charges and gave him a copy of those amended and new charges. Then it held an enquiry in which the evidence of witnesses was recorded in his presence, and he was also given an opportunity to cross-examine them and to adduce evidence on his behalf. But his prayer for being represented by a counsel was rejected. The case against the petitioner was conducted by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After completing the departmental enquiry, the learned Tribunal submitted its report on the 1st June 1960, exonerating the petitioner in respect of some of the major charges, but holding him guilty of the charge of failure to discharge his duties as a Judicial Officer properly. The main acts of delinquency of which the petitioner was found guilty, were these :
(i) He purchased a second hand car on the 20th July 1958, from the eighth defendant in Money Suit No. 12 of 1956 pending in his court without obtaining, the previous permission of the Revenue Divisional commissioner and thereby contravened Rule 9 of the Government servants Conduct Rules. (ii) He failed to discharge his duties properly as Subordinate Judge in passing orders for the issue of a writ of attachment before judgment on 26th March, 1958, in Money Suit No. 7 of 1958. (iii) He failed to discharge his duties properly By: (a) unnecessarily interfering in the course of cross examination by a lawyer in several suits, especially in Money Suit No. 12 of 1956. (b) not acting carefully by demanding more Court fee in Title suit No. 3 of 1958 and (c) by creating an impression in the minds of the litigants in money Suit No. 12 of 1956, Execution Case No. 53 of 1957, and Title Suit No. 3 of 1958 that he was leaning in favour of the party on whose behalf two Advocates of Sambalpur Bar appeared, viz. Sri Gouri Sankar Misra and Sri Manabhanjan pradhan. These two Advocates are said to be his friends.
( 3 ) ON the basis of the report of the Administrative Tribunal, Government tentatively decided, with the concurrence of the High Court, that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service and he was given a further opportunity to show cause why the proposed punishment may not be passed against him. A copy of the report of the Tribunal was also sent to him. He showed cause o
