Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 1258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Akshaya Kumar Rath., J.
BASANTI MOHANTY AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
OJC No. 2228 of 2002
Decided On : 02-03-2016
Sarat Ch. Dash, Advocate, for the Appellant;
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, the requirement for impartial decision-making, and the proportionality of punishment to the misconduct.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1985 - Regulation 19 - Rule 23(2)(a) of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Rules - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 - Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India 1994 (2) SCC 416 - B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others AIR 1996 SC 484 - Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs. AIR 1997 SC 3387
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action on grounds of procedural irregularities and bias in the decision-making process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural infirmities, including failure to serve charge sheets and biased decision-making. The Court also held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The Court modified the punishment to treat the period of suspension as such and directed the calculation and disbursement of retiral benefits to the deceased employee's legal heirs.
Issues: Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings, bias in decision-making, proportionality of punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and cited precedents to support its findings. It held that the disciplinary authority's decision must be impartial and without bias, and the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct. The Court also highlighted the limited scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ application was allowed, quashing the orders of compulsory retirement and directing the calculation and disbursement of retiral benefits to the deceased employee's legal heirs.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. - 1. Assailing the letter dated 4.2.2002, vide Annexure-9, issued by the General Manager, Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, opposite party No. 5, and the order dated 1.12.2001, vide Annexure-7, passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, opposite party No. 4, respectively, Anadi Charan Mohanty, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has filed this writ application. By letter dated 4.2.2002, opposite party No. 5 intimated the petitioner that his appeal had been rejected by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 15.1.2002 thereby upholding the order of compulsory retirement from services passed by opposite party No. 4.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of Anadi Charan Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") are that aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the action of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") in not according him promotion, he approached this Court number of times. In spite of the orders passed by this Court, promotion was not accorded. Though the petitioner had given vivid details of the same, but the same are not germane for consideration of this case. Suffice it to say that while he was continuing as the Senior Superintendent of the Corporation, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a letter on 28.9.2001 intimating the petitioner that it was proposed to take action against him under Regulation 19 of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1985 for imposition of penalty/penalties. The additional charges basing on the action proposed to be taken together with a list of allegations and documents had been supplied. He was directed to submit his explanation on the charges within thirty days. The Deputy General Manager, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, sent a letter on 29.9.2001 to the petitioner that in spite of repeated notices issued to him to appear before the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide corporation office order No. 4666 dated 23.7.1999 and No. 9227 dated 15.2.1999, he did not appear. He was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 15.10.2001. He submitted his reply requesting the Enquiry Officer to give personal hearing. But no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Corporation sent a letter to the petitioner on 17.11.2001 stating therein that the C.M.D. of the Corporation acting on the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer on 2.11.2001 had passed order on 16.11.2001 proposing to impose two punishments; compulsorily retired from service and to treat the period of suspension as such. He was called upon to submit the show cause. On 22.11.2001, he sent a reply. Again, he sent another reply on 24.11.2001 in addition to the earlier reply. While the matter stood thus, on 1.12.2001, the C.M.D. imposed the following penalties; "(1) He is compulsorily retired from Corporation service; and (2) The period of his suspension is treated as such". He filed an appeal before the Board of Directors under Rule 23(2)(a) of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Rules on 28.12.2001, which was eventually rejected by the Board on 15.1.2002.
3. It is stated that the charges had never been supplied to the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing was provided to him and, as such, the entire proceeding was vitiated. Furthermore, the Managing Director of the Corporation, who was the disciplinary authority imposed a major punishment, was the member of the Board of Directors. Thus the decision of the Board of Directors in confirming with the order of punishment passed by the Managing Director smacks mala fide.
4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 2 to 5 filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 23.7.1999 for gross indiscipline and illegal dharana. The petitioner resorted to
