Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B. R. Sarangi, J.
Saroj Kumar Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 17479 of 2016
Decided On : 19-06-2019
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, along with M/s. D.K. Panda, G. Sinha & A. Mishra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, along with M/s. G.P. Dutta, S.K. Mohanty, B.K. Sahoo and S. Perween, Advocates, for the Respondent
Cases Referred
Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. vs. L.K. Bose, AIR 1967 SC 361
Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480
D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259
Fedco P Ltd. vs. S.N. Bilgrami, AIR 1960 SC 415
Nagariuna Construction Company Limited vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Md. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86
Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing penalties such as compulsory retirement, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Compulsory Retirement - Rule 9(C)(h) of the Bye-Laws - 9(C)(iii) - 9(D) - 9(E) - The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement from service due to the undue haste shown by the disciplinary authority in passing the order without affording reasonable opportunity within the meaning of the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the appointing authority to proceed in compliance with the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager, filed a writ petition to quash the charges framed against him and the consequential final order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority showed undue haste in imposing the penalty without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had shown undue haste in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement without affording reasonable opportunity within the meaning of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues involved were the violation of the principles of natural justice in the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement and the availability of alternative remedy for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the writ application was maintainable. The court also emphasized the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such penalties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the order of compulsory retirement, and remitted the matter back to the appointing authority to proceed in compliance with the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager (System) under Orissa State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Limited, Bhawanipatna Division, Bhawanipatna in the district of Kalahandi, has filed this writ petition to quash the charges framed against him vide Proceeding No.2/2016 dated 30.04.2016 in Annexure-3 and show-cause notice issued about the proposed punishment vide letter dated 20.09.2016 in Annexure-10 and consequential final order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service passed by the appointing authority-cum-disciplinary authority (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) in Annexure-12 dated 20.10.2016. He further seeks for direction to allow him to continue in service by granting all financial benefits as admissible to him retrospectively.
2. Orissa State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Odisha having its registered office at Bhoi Nagar, Janapath, Bhubaneswar. It is committed to build Police Buildings innovatively to enhance police efficiency and thereby improve Police Community relations. The Corporation undertakes to construct buildings for housing of the employees of the Government of Orissa in the Police, Prisons, Home Guards, Fire Force Department and also Judicial Department. The Corporation floated an e-tender proposal, having bid identification No.21/OPHWC/2015-16, for selection of brands which were originally given for four numbers of commonly reputed brands, i.e., Bijay, Crompton Graves, Philips & GE. The said e-tender was allegedly tampered/altered by adding the word "or equivalent". The allegation was made against the petitioner committing serious misconduct with a will-ful and mala fide intention to accommodating some unbranded firms which might not be having adequate quality control. It was further alleged that such action on his part was unauthorized and amounted to serious dereliction of duty and mala fide intention of harming the credibility & reputation of the Corporation. With this allegation, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation pursuant to letter dated 11.03.2016 within six days. On receiving the said letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.03.2016 specifically contending that incorporation of word "or equivalent" in the tender documents for procurement and installation of High Mast lights was in consultation with the Joint Manager(Elect) and Dy. Manager 1/C (Elect.) during document preparation before floating of the tender with an objective to participate more firms or other reputed companies complying all specifications as per the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN) and denied the allegation of willful intention with mala fide motive on his part to accommodate unbranded firms. It is further contended that the bid document was prepared taking references from the CVC guidelines and similar type of tender notices flashed by other governmental organizations in Odisha viz. IDCO, H & UD Dept., GoO & CESU etc. As such, he contended that he had nothing to do with the addition/alterations of tender documents and there was no willful act to malign the reputation of the Corporation. Therefore, he prayed for exoneration of the charges.
2.1 Having dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 30.04.2016, the opposite party no.2 issued charge-sheet and memo of evidence and called for submission of explanation within one month from the date of receipt of the letter in support of his defence. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him on 27.05.2016 vide Annuxure-4 denying the allegations made against him. Consequentially, the disciplinary authority-opposite party no.2 having dissatisfied with the explanation, vide Annexure-5 dated 28.05.2016 appointed Mr. G.H. Pradhan, Joint Manager, Berhampur Division as Enquiry Officer, and Mr. Subash Ch. Sahoo, Sr. Steno-cum-Asst. to Chief
