Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, C. J. And R. N. Misra, J.
BRUNDABAN PADHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 203 Of 1965
Decided On : JULY 08, 1969
Article 311(2) - Civil Servant Misconduct - The court held that if the punishment tentatively proposed against a civil servant is of a lesser kind, but after hearing his representation he is awarded a graver form of punishment, there is non-compliance with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 'Discharge' has been accepted as a punishment lesser than 'dismissal'.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a civil servant, was dismissed from service after charges of misconduct were framed against him. The petitioner filed a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, claiming that the dismissal order was without jurisdiction and must be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed punishment was one of discharge, but the ultimate punishment inflicted was one of dismissal, which was non-compliant with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. As a result, the impugned order was set aside and the writ application was allowed with costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution in the context of the punishment imposed on the civil servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation that 'discharge' is a punishment lesser than 'dismissal', and any deviation from the initially proposed punishment after hearing the civil servant's representation would be non-compliant with Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the writ application was allowed with costs, including a hearing fee of Rs. 100/-.
G. K. MISBA, C. J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was an Aniin in the Hirakud Land Organisation. Certain charges were framed against him alleging misconduct. After the enquiry was over. Government in the Political and Services Department communicated their tentative decision to discharge the petitioner from service and he was asked to show cause. The petitioner showed cause. Ultimately, however, the petitioner was dismissed by the order of the Collector dated 20-3-65, and a direction was also issued to realise rs. 343-85 from him representing half the misappropriated amount. The writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution saying that the order so passed was without jurisdiction and must be set aside.
( 2 ) LAW is well settled that if the punishment tentatively proposed against a civil servant is of a lesser kind, but after hearing his representation he is awarded a graver form of punishment, there is non-compliance with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 'discharge' has been accepted as a punishment lesser than 'dismissal'. (See Dayanidhi Rath v. B. S. Mohanty, AIR 1955 Orissa 33 ). This has been followed in S. K. Pandey v. State of Bihar, 1967 BLJR 58.
( 3 ) ON the accepted position that the proposed punishment was one of discharge, but the ultimate punishment inflicted was one of dismissal the order cannot be supported. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (one hundred ).
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
