Point of Law : Findings of the inquiry officer is vitiated prima facie for violation of fundamental principles.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray,J.

1. The judgment dated 5th February, 2015 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.2679 of 2010 wherein the order of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority has been set aside with direction to pay all consequential service benefits, is challenged in the present appeal.

2. Respondent No.1 was the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge and the present Appellants were Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 respectively.

3. Respondent No.1, Dr. Satyanarayan Pradhan was serving as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth Science in Sambalpur University during the year 1998. For alleged misconduct, a memorandum of charges dated 23rd July, 1998 was served on him along with statement of allegations. There were 7 heads of charges which are reproduced below:

i) Moral turpitude,

(ii) Conduct improper on the part of an employee of the University and a teacher of the University,

(iii) Misuse of premises of the University,

(iv) Occupying University Guest House without authority,

(v) Collusion with the staff for financial impropriety,

(vi) Misbehaviour with employees of the University,

(vii) Misconduct by suppressing mal-practice report of B.Ed. examination.

4. After receipt of the charge memo, Respondent No.1 asked for supply of copy of Annexure-A referred in the statement of allegations and copies of statements recorded in course of preliminary inquiry along with other relevant documents. The copies of such documents as sought for by the Respondent No.1 were not served upon him despite his repeated request. Finally Respondent No.1 submitted his written explanation on 25th August, 1998 without receiving the copies he asked for.

5. A retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the inquiry officer by order dated 27th January, 1999. In course of inquiry, four witnesses namely, Tribikram Mishra, the officer in charge of University guest house, Sunanda Mohanty, Lecturer of B.Ed. College, Chakradhar Biswal, Centre Superintendent for B.Ed. Examination, and Purusottam Patra, the Administrative Officer of VSS Medical College, Burla – cum -ADM were examined. Upon conclusion of inquiry, the report dated 14th May, 2000 was submitted.

6. The disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry report holding Respondent No.1 guilty of the charges of misconduct and dereliction of duty in its order dated 24th June, 2000. In the said order punishment of dismissal from service was also proposed and Respondent No.1 was asked to submit his show cause against that proposed punishment. A copy of the inquiry report was enclosed along with said order dated 24th June, 2000 for information of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 submitted his show cause dated 11th July, 2000 refuting the findings of inquiry officer and again reiterated his contention for non-supply of relevant documents. Thereafter the final order dated 31st August, 2000 of dismissal from service amounting to disqualification for future employment was passed with immediate effect.

7. Respondent No.1 preferred appeal against the same to the Chancellor in terms of Rule 304 of the Orissa Universities 1st Statute, 1990. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the charges and punishment.

8. Respondent No.1 then preferred the afore-stated writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is observed that no adequate opportunity has been granted to him before inflicting the major penalty due to non-supply of relevant documents and inquiry report.

9. The disciplinary authorities who are the Appellants before us submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact of service of inquiry report along with second show cause notice on 24th June, 2000. So, it is incorrect to observe that copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the delinquent. It is further submitted that, even assuming there is procedural violation in conducting the departmental proceeding, the same canno