Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ,
Prahallad Chandra Mallick – Petitioner
Versus
Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa and Others – Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.8251 of 2010
Decided On : 26-04-2017
For the Petitioner: M/s. U.C. Patnaik, S. Patnaik and M. R. Sahoo. M/s. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra, A. K. Mohapatra, N. C. Rout and S. K. Padhi. M/s. Arun Kumar Acharya and Sasmita Mishra.
For the Opp.Parties :Mr. M. S. Sahoo, Addl. Government Advocate
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Departmental Proceeding - Article 226 and 227 - 7 of 2001, 2 of 1999 - 25.07.2001 - 18.2.2010
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sr. Clerk, was dismissed from service after being found guilty of inflicting blows on a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and committing gross irregularities. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on grounds of inadequate opportunity to be heard and lack of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to defend himself, including cross-examining witnesses, and that the nature of the charges was serious. The court also cited limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to review the order of punishment when there is concurrent finding and opportunity of hearing has been given.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the opportunity provided to the petitioner for defense and the court's jurisdiction to review the order of punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the settled legal proposition that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The court emphasized that it cannot sit as an appellate court and can only interfere if there is a violation of principles of natural justice or if the conclusion is wholly arbitrary and capricious.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the orders impugned suffered from no infirmity and declined to interfere with the same.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of dismissal dtd.04.03.2006 and the appellate order dtd.18.2.2010 confirming the order of dismissal.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Sr. Clerk under the District Judge, Balasore, proceeded departmentally vide departmental proceeding No.2 of 1999 and 7 of 2001 for alleged misconduct and of commission of irregularities of inflicting blows on the forehead, chest and cheek of Sri Agasti kumar Sahoo, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaleswar while he was in chamber causing swelling and bleeding injury on his forehead and thereby he has shown his behavior not to be retained in the service and accordingly a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him, he has participated in the enquiry in which the charge has been proved, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed.
The applicant has filed an appeal before the competent appellate committee, the committee has affirmed the order of dismissal against which this writ petition has been filed.
3. The petitioner while challenging the orders, has taken the ground that he has not been provided with adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard, not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and not been provided with opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority before passing the final order.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has defended the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate committee by submitting that the petitioner who was working as Sr. Clerk in the District Court, Balasore under Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has committed gross irregularities which is very serious in nature, hence a departmental proceeding has been initiated in which the petitioner has been given all opportunities to defend himself. He has participated in the enquiry fully without any compliant. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved against him. The disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report, issued second show cause notice and after considering the response of the second show cause, the punishment of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority.
The petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal before the standing committee of the Orissa high court, the committee after hearing him, has passed an order affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
It has been submitted that there is no illegality in the order of dismissal, rather all procedure, as has been laid down under the law, has been followed and thereafter considering the gravity of the offence, the order of dismissal has been passed.
It has been submitted that jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to reverse the view of the disciplinary authority is very restricted and it can only exercise the power of judicial review if there is miscarriage of justice due to non-observance of principle of natural justice or mala fide, but no such case has been made out by the petitioner.
He further submits that there is no provision in the law that before passing the final order, the disciplinary authority shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
The petitioner while working as Sr. Clerk has been departmentally proceeded for the following charges:-
(i) That you Shri Prahallad Chandra Mallik, while working as Bench Clerk of the Court of J.M.F.C., Jaleswar on 25.07.2001 inflicted fist blows on the forehead, cheek and chest of Shri Agasti Kumar Sahu, J.M.F.C., Jaleswar while he was in his chamber causing swelling and bleeding injuries on his forehead and severe pain on his chest which amounts to gross misconduct.
(ii) That you Shr
