Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.S. Chauhan, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
PANCHANAN SAHOO - APPELLANT
Versus
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 8248 of 2001
Decided On : 08-12-2008
R.K. Rath and N.R. Rout, for the Appellant; P. Panda, A.S.C., for the Respondent
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment, and the requirement to demonstrate prejudice or injustice to vitiate an inquiry.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Administrative Action - Inquiry Report - Proportionality of Punishment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was reverted from the rank of Orissa Judicial Service, Class I (Junior) to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II due to charges of conducting an illegal auction sale of gold and silver ornaments, resulting in substantial financial loss to the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the punishment imposed was lenient considering the gravity of the misconduct. The court also held that the petitioner's argument of non-furnishing of the inquiry report did not vitiate the inquiry unless prejudice or injustice was demonstrated.
Issues: Validity of reversion from Class I to Class II, conduct of the inquiry, proportionality of punishment, non-furnishing of inquiry report
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions is limited and interference is warranted only if the decision is based on extraneous grounds, is manifestly arbitrary, or violates principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted the principle of proportionality, stating that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the reversion and finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 22/23.5.2000 by which the Petitioner has been reverted from the rank of Orissa Judicial Service, Class I ( Junior) to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Petitioner joined the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II on 8.8.1983 being selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission. In due course of time he was promoted to the rank of Orissa Judicial Service, Class I (Junior). Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.4.1996 (Annex.-1) pending framing of charges. He was served the charge sheet dated 8.11.1996 (Annex.-2) levelling five charges against him. In support of the charges, statement of allegations were furnished that the Petitioner did not hold the auction properly and did not maintain any record of the auction bid and sold the gold with dishonest motive of making personal gain. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet on 20.1.1997 (Annex. 4) denying allegations. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Large number of witnesses were examined. In the inquiry report dated 28.5.1997 (Annex.-6) all the charges were found proved. Second show cause was served upon the Petitioner and he submitted the reply to the said show cause on 8.12.1997 (Annex.-7). Considering the same, the impugned order reverting the Petitioner was passed. Hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. N.R. Rout, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that auction of the gold (case property) had been conducted strictly in accordance with law and gold had been sold at the prevailing price. The Petitioner had not been made aware of any of the Government order/circular for not conducting such auction sale or for prescribing any particular procedure. The gold was sold in performance of the official capacity in good faith. Therefore, no inquiry could have been conducted in such matter inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. Preliminary inquiry was conducted behind the back of the Petitioner and when he asked for its papers, the opposite parties did not make supply there of. Therefore the inquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice. After submission of the inquiry report second show cause was served upon the Petitioner along with that inquiry report was not furnished, thus Petitioner could not make proper comments on the inquiry report. The punishment awarded is disproportionate to the delinquency. Therefore, the order of reversion is liable to be set aside.
4. On the contrary, Mr. P. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has submitted that the preliminary inquiry is conducted only to find out the facts as to whether a regular inquiry is warranted in a particular case. Once a decision is taken to hold a regular inquiry, the preliminary inquiry looses its significance and unless the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry are used against the delinquent in the regular inquiry the papers of the said inquiry are not required to be given to him. Serious charges of dishonesty and corruption were leveled against the Petitioner. That he sold the gold in violation of the Government Circular without having proper auction and without maintaining any record of auction; it could not be determined as who were the auction bidders; the sale was for lesser consideration than actual value of the sold items. Petitioner had indulged in corrupt practice as the gold was sold at a chipper rate without following the procedure prescribed by law for his personal gain.
5. In such an eventuality the only punishment which could have been given to the Petitioner was dismissal from service. However, a lenient view was taken. Thus no interference is required in the matter. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Petitioner when posted as S.D.J.M.,
