Back
1956 Supreme(Ori) 58
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
NARASIMHAM,DAS, JJ.
Baishnab Charan Das
Versus
State of Orissa
O.J.C. No.91 of 1955
Decided On : 30-10-1956
P.C. Chatterji, for Petitioner; Advocate-General, for Opposite Parties.
The provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951 were not less favourable to the petitioner than the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930, and the Tribunal Rules did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - PROCEDURE - TRIBUNAL RULES - CLASSIFICATION RULES - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a gazetted officer in the Government of Orissa, was charged with several irregularities and corrupt practices. His case was referred to the Administrative Tribunal under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951. The Tribunal found him guilty of most of the charges and recommended his dismissal from service. The Government, after considering the Tribunal's report, discharged the petitioner from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Tribunal Rules were not less favourable to the petitioner than the provisions of the Classification Rules. The Court also held that the Tribunal Rules did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Tribunal Rules were less favourable to the petitioner than the provisions of the Classification Rules? 2. Whether the Tribunal Rules offended Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal Rules were not less favourable to the petitioner than the provisions of the Classification Rules because: (a) The Tribunal Rules provided for an independent enquiry by a member of the Tribunal, whereas the Classification Rules allowed for an enquiry by the superior officer of the Department concerned. (b) The findings of the Tribunal were subject to further scrutiny by Government, whereas the findings of the superior officer were final. (c) The petitioner had the right to request that his case be referred to the Tribunal, and the Governor was bound to accede to his request. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal Rules did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution because: (a) 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. (b) The question of whether Rule 4(1) of the Tribunal Rules would be discriminatory so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution so far as enquiries against non-gazetted government servants were concerned was left open.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Judgement
NARASIMHAM, C. J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Government of Orissa in the Development Department, No. 18238 dated 28-12-1954 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 R. 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 his 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 of Art. 311 of the Constitution appear to have been fully complied with.
4. Mr. Chatterjis 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 Govenment.
(2) In the notice under Art. 311 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 56 and 57). The petitioner was at all material times,
