Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 189 (ORI)

Balakrushna Parida v. State of Orissa

2007-03-15

P.K.TRIPATHY, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : In this writ application, the petition¬er prays for quashing of order No.2878 dated 05.09.1990 passed by opposite party No.3 under Annexure-4, order No.11718 dated 18.09.1991 (Annexure-6) and order No.16156 dated 25.05.1995 (Annexure-7) and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the opposite parties to give him all financial and service benefits taken away by the same. 2. The petitioner was the Section Officer in the Estab¬lishment Branch of the Cuttack Development Authority. While working as such, the Vice-Chairman-opposite party No.3 served a draft charge on the petitioner. In the said draft charge, as many as five charges had been framed against him for serious lapse, gross negligence in duty and lack of supervision. The petitioner submitted his explanation. After inquiry by opposite party No.3, the disciplinary authority on 05.04.1990 passed an order that charges have been established against the petitioner and awarded different punishments for different charges. Against the enquiry and order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman, C.D.A.-cum-Minister, Housing and Urban Development, but the Chairman by order dated 18.09.1991 affirmed two punishments and set aside the rest two. Against that order, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government, which was rejected by opposite party No.1. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that due procedure was not followed in conducting the enquiry. Moreover, no opportu¬nity was given to the petitioner before imposing punishment. He further submitted that since the principle of natural justice was not followed, the enquiry is vitiated. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the appellate authority has not applied his mind and passed an unreasoned order. 4. After hearing was concluded, this Court directed the counsel for the opposite parties to produce the records of the disciplinary proceeding. In compliance of the above order, record has been produced. 5. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the order has been passed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Chairman, C.D.A.-cum-Minister, Housing and Urban Development, setting aside two of the punishments and affirming the other two. But, while doing so, no reason whatsoever has been ascribed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is not valid in the eye of law and so this Court quashes the same. 6. But, while doing so, no reason whatsoever has been ascribed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is not valid in the eye of law and so this Court quashes the same. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the appellate authority under Annexure-6 and the order passed on the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-7 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Chairman, C.D.A.-cum-Minister, Housing and Urban Development, for fresh disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportu¬nity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.