Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.N. Prasad, J.
Hadibandhu Panigrahi - Appellants
Vs.
Orissa Pollution Control Board and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2003
Decided On : 18-02-2016
2. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - Supply of documents - Relevant document is to be supplied to the delinquent employee but if it is not relevant in the eye of the disciplinary authority, but relevant in the eye of the delinquent employee it is the foremost duty of the delinquent to make a requisition in this regard by showing relevancy and then only if the authority will not supply the document then only it can be said that adequate opportunity to defend has not been given to the delinquent employee.
3. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - Supply of copy of enquiry report - Doctrine of natural justice requires supply of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent if such enquiry officer is otherwise than the disciplinary authority - Non-supply of report of enquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice - Failure to supply copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent would not if so facto result in the proceeding being declared null and void and the order of punishment nonest and ineffective - It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice - If he is unable to satisfy the Court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition the order of punishment dtd. 13.06.2000 (Annexure-12) and appellate order dtd. 4.10.2002 (Annexure-14) are under challenge.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while was serving under Orissa Pollution Control Board as Regional Officer-in-Charge, Regional Office, Berhampur was served with an order issued by the Chairman on 21.8.1999 vide letter No. 12691 along with charges of allegation issued under the provision of Rule 15 of Orissa Civil Services (C.C.A. Rules, 1962) according to which it has been alleged against the petitioner that while he was working at Regional Office, Cuttack on 9.3.1997 issued no objection certificate in favour of M/s. Sri Mahabir Carbon Ltd., Jagatpur, Cuttack vide letters No. 97 dtd. 9.3.1997 and in course of preliminary enquiry the charges have been framed asking the petitioner to give reply of the charges within 30 days as to why the petitioner be not dismissed or removed from service. The petitioner was also placed under suspension. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet had submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board with prayer to review the order of suspension. The authorities have not satisfied themselves with the reply submitted by him and as such the petitioner was prosecuted by initiating a regular departmental proceeding and in the enquiry the charges leveled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority has accepted the charges and thereafter the punishment of Censure, withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, period of suspension be treated as such and only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension will be allowed and the delinquent shall not be assigned with any independent charge of the office of the Board for a period of three years.
The petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has affirmed the order of punishment considering the gravity of the charges.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of punishment is before this court on the following grounds:--
"(i) The Orissa Water (Prevention, Control and Pollution) Rules, 1983 (herein after referred to as 'The Rule, 1983) is meant for regulating the service condition of the petitioner, wherein a provision has been made under Rule 16(7) making it mandatory that the Departmental Proceeding will be initiated against an employee with the previous permission of the Board and the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed as Asst. Environment Scientist by the Board and as such the competent authority to initiate a departmental proceeding is the Board and as per the provision as laid down under Rule 16(7) no such permission has been obtained by the Board before initiation of departmental proceeding.
(ii) The incident took place on 9.3.1997 but the charge-sheet was submitted on 24.8.1999 i.e. after delay of two and half years hence on the ground of delay the departmental proceeding is fit to be vitiated.
(iii) Relevant documents have not been supplied to him.
(iv) The Chairman participated in the Board meeting and approved the decision of the Board regarding approval of the decision of the Chairman for initiating departmental proceeding.
(v) The enquiry report has not been supplied along with the second show cause notice.
(vi) The enquiry officer has recommended the punishment in the enquiry report which is not permissible.
On these grounds this writ petition has been filed."
4. While on the other hand the case of opposite party - Board as has been pleaded in counter affidavit as well as additional affidavit is that the petitioner while posted as Asst. Environment Scientist was supposed to perform his duty with utmost sincerity but he has failed to discharge his duty as because he has issued no objection certificate illegally and when the illegality has been surfaced, the authorities have directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry,
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
