Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, K.R. Mohapatra, JJ.
Hemanta Kumar Dash - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14274 of 2021, 14278 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2021
S. Mohanty, Advocate, P.K. Parhi, Advocate
The central legal point established is that the denial of an opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings may not necessarily invalidate the proceedings if the representation of the party was considered in detail by the authorities.
Headnote:
Opportunity of Hearing - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 62 of the Postal Manual Volume III - Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966) AIR SC 671 - Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation, (1996) AIR SC 1509
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Post Master, challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for minor misconduct. He alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of personal hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet was considered in detail by the Inquiry Officer (IO) and the Disciplinary Authority (DA). The Court held that the holding of a hearing would have been an empty formality as the basic facts were not in dispute and the petitioner did not indicate the need for witnesses or cross-examination. The Court also noted that the petitioner's characterization of his misconduct as a 'silly mistake' and his admission that similar mistakes were frequent due to computerization and modernization of post offices weakened his defense.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court cited legal precedents to establish that the requirement of affording personal hearing is not mandatory in all circumstances and depends on the facts of each case. It emphasized that the denial of an opportunity of hearing may not necessarily invalidate the proceedings if the representation of the party was considered in detail by the authorities.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions and upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority, and the Central Administrative Tribunal. No costs were awarded to either party.
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, C. J. - Both the writ petitions, having the same parties and filed by the same Petitioner, arise out of a similar set of facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In W.P.(C) No.14274 of 2021 the Petitioner challenges an order dated 18th January, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (CAT) dismissing his O.A. No.371 of 2015.
3. In W.P.(C) No.14278 of 2021 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 28th January, 2021 passed by the CAT dismissing his O.A. No.407 of 2015.
4. As far as Writ Petition (Civil) No.14274 of 2021 is concerned, the background facts are that the Petitioner while working as Senior Post Master (SPM), Banarpal S.O. was served with a charge sheet for minor misconduct. Proceedings were initiated against him under Section 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge sheet alleged that the Petitioner, who is a trained official in various modules of software, while working as officiating SPM from 21st January, 2011 till 18th February, 2011, neither reported to the Divisional Office nor to the System Administrator, Angul Head Office regarding disconnection of the system of Banarpal SO to speed net server of PTC Mysore. Further it was alleged that no eMO was printed nor paid data updated till 14th February, 2011 except on 5th February, 2011 when the System Administrator (SA) visited Banarpal SO. The SA had printed 16 eMOs and booked three speed post articles. From the record, it was revealed that the Petitioner (Shri Dash) had contrary to his plea of not being able to move his right hand, had actually performed the office work manually. His conduct of not working on the computers was found unjustified. It was stated that the Petitioner had not only willfully avoided to perform the assigned duty contravening the provisions of Rule 62 of the Postal Manual Volume III but also failed to maintain due devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant as enjoined in Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) respectively of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
5. According to the Petitioner, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing although he did file a reply to the charge sheet and which reply was considered by the Inquiry Officer Authority (IO). The disciplinary enquiry culminated in the Disciplinary Authority (DA) finding him guilty and awarding him the punishment of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of two and half years, without cumulative effect.
6. The order dated 9th March, 2011 of the DA was modified by the Appellate Authority (AA) by an order dated 25th October, 2011 reducing the punishment awarded to the Petitioner to withholding one increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect.
7. The Revisional Authority (RA) by order dated 11th July, 2013 declined to further interfere and dismissed the revision petition of the Petitioner.
8. By the impugned order dated 18th January 2021, the CAT dismissed the Petitioner's O.A. No.371 of 2015 challenging the above orders of the DA, AA and RA.
9. As far as Writ Petition (Civil) No.14278 of 2021 is concerned, the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 3rd July, 2013 alleging that while working as SPM, Hulursinga SO from 7th June, 2012 till 17th April, 2013, the Petitioner failed to take print out of 49 eMOs booked at Nalco Nagar between 18th and 22nd March, 2013 for payment to the beneficiaries at Badakera BO under Hulursinga SO. When the SA visited the said station on 22nd March, 2013 on receiving complaints, he took a print out of 35 eMOs prior to which the Petitioner had taken print out of 14 eMOs. It was alleged that the Petitioner had not only willfully avoided performing the assigned duty thus contravening Rule 62 of the Postal Manual Volume III and but also failed to maintain due devotion to duty.
10. The above charge sheet culminated in an order dated 17th April, 2013 of the DA awarding the punishment of stoppage of increment for an year. The AA
