Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Mohapatra, R.C. Patnaik, JJ.
S.H. RAHMAN - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 394 of 1978
Decided On : 10-05-1985
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - PENALTY IMPOSITION - RULE 15 OF ORISSA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1962 - INTERPRETATION - MINOR PENALTY IMPOSITION WITHOUT FOLLOWING ENTIRE PROCEDURE - VALIDITY - SUPPLY OF ENQUIRY REPORT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S OPINION TO APPELLANT - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT REASONS - INVALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, was placed under suspension and faced a disciplinary proceeding for alleged negligence and malpractice. After an enquiry, he was found guilty of certain irregularities and a minor penalty of censure was imposed, treating the suspension period as 'on duty'. He appealed the decision, but his appeal was rejected without providing reasons. He challenged the imposition of the penalty and the appellate order, arguing that he should have been exonerated, that the Government could not impose a minor penalty without following the entire procedure under Rule 15, that he was denied a copy of the enquiry report, and that the appellate order was a non-speaking order.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court found that the petitioner was exonerated of serious charges but was found guilty of certain irregularities. It held that the Enquiring Officer's findings were reasonable and supported by evidence. 2. The court held that the Government was not required to follow the entire procedure under Rule 15 when imposing a minor penalty and that Rule 15(11) specifically authorized the course adopted by the disciplinary authority. 3. The court found that the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report and the Public Service Commission's opinion violated Sub-rule (12) of Rule 15 and constituted an infirmity in the proceeding. 4. The court held that the appellate order was invalid as it did not provide any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeal, violating the principles of just and fair play.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner should have been exonerated from all charges. 2. Whether the Government could impose a minor penalty without following the entire procedure under Rule 15. 3. Whether the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report and the Public Service Commission's opinion constituted an infirmity in the proceeding. 4. Whether the appellate order was valid despite being a non-speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Enquiring Officer's findings were reasonable and supported by evidence, and thus the petitioner was not entitled to complete exoneration. 2. The court interpreted Rule 15(11) as authorizing the disciplinary authority to impose a minor penalty without following the entire procedure under Rule 15 when it deemed appropriate. 3. The court held that the requirement to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report and the Public Service Commission's opinion was mandatory under Sub-rule (12) of Rule 15 and its violation constituted an infirmity in the proceeding. 4. The court held that the appellate order was invalid as it failed to provide any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeal, violating the principles of just and fair play.
Final Decision: 1. The court quashed the appellate order rejecting the petitioner's appeal and the order rejecting his memorial. 2. The court directed the Government to provide the petitioner with a copy of the Public Service Commission's opinion and allowed him to present an appeal within a fortnight of receiving the opinion. 3. The court expressed its view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner may have been excessive and harsh and urged the Government to consider this aspect while disposing of the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
R.C. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner has invoiced our extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the order, dated 8. 12. 1976 (Annexure-5) passed by the Government imposing penalty in a disciplinary proceeding; alternatively for the quashing of the appellate decision rejecting his appeal and for other reliefs.
2. The petitioner was the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer posted at the Girisola check-gate in the district of Ganjam. By order, dated 5. 4.1972 (Annexure-1) he was placed under suspension. After a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of negligence in the discharge of duties and recourse to malpractice, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. Five others who were also involved faced a joint enquiry which was entrusted to the Special Additional Commissioner of Commercial-taxes. The Government issued an order dated July 7, 1972 (Annexure-2) that the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 would be followed and the Government would function as the disciplinary authority. A set of charges was framed and the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The petitioner showed cause. The Enquiring Officer took evidence and submitted report to the Government. He exonerated the petitioner from seven charges. He found against him in respect of charge Nos. 2, 5 and 6. The petitioner was released from suspension and reinstated with effect from November 10, 1976. On December 8, 1976, the Government taking into account the enquiry report imposed the punishment of censure and directed that the period of suspension would be treated as such. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Minister. By order, dated May 18, 1977 (Annexure-7) he was informed that his, appeal was rejected. He submitted a memorial to the Governor. By Annexure-9 dated November 9, 1979 he was informed that his memorial was rejected.
3. The grievances of the petitioner are four-fold. Firstly, having regard to the stand taken by him and the findings of the Enquiring Officer, he should have been completely exonerated and inasmuch as he has been exonerated of the serious charges, for minor irregularities no penalty should have been imposed. Secondly, the disciplinary proceeding having been initiated under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, it was not open to the Government to dispose of the proceeding under Rule 16; thirdly, non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report was tantamount to denial of an opportunity to him to effectively exercise the right of appeal and fourthly, the disposal of the appeal and even the memorial by a non-speaking order was contrary to established canons of fair play and procedure.
4. In the return submitted, the opposite parties while admitting that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, refuted the other allegations.
5. We take up the contentions raised seriatim. Doubtless, the petitioner was exonerated of the serious allegations which were levelled against him. Nevertheless certain irregularities had been committed, certain infractions were admitted by him. He pleaded hardship and difficulties. He stated that he followed the practice which was being followed by his predecessors at the station. We have been taken through the enquiry report which has been annexed to the counter as Annexure-A. The Enquiring Officer considered the allegations with meticulous care, and the materials in great detail. He did not fail to take into account the difficulties that the petitioner faced at the station. We reproduce the following in paragraph 19 of the report.
"During the course of enquiry Sri Rahaman pressed to consider the practical difficulties encountered by the officer in charge of a check-gate especially at Girisola. He pointed out that certain basic facilities commensurate with the duties and responsibilities assigned to the check-gate officer are wanting at Girisol
AI
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
