Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1277 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. U. Chandra Sekhar Patra

2016-12-22

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2016
S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is by State of Orissa assailing the order dated 23.2.1999 passed in O.A. No. 2306 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the order of penalty dated 22.9.1992 has been quashed putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vrs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 . 2. Fact of the case is that while the opposite party no.1 was working as a Special Officer, I.T.D.A., Thumba in the district of Ganjam from 13.12.1985 to 9.12.1985, he was proceeded departmentally for commission of some acts of misconduct, finally the proceeding was concluded, punishment imposed. Opposite party no.1 has challenged the order of punishment before the Tribunal on the ground that the departmental proceeding is fit to be quashed as also the order of punishment since copy of the enquiry report and the second show cause notice has not been supplied to him. 3. Opposite party no.1 had placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Ramzan (Supra). The Tribunal has quashed the order of punishment which is under challenge by the State of Orissa on the ground that the ratio laid down in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra) has been overruled by the subsequent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of its Constitution Bench in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vrs. B. Karunakar & Ors, (1993) 4 SCC 727 . The ground taken by the opposite party no.1 is that while imposing punishment there is violation of principle of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority has not supplied copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice, hence he has not been provided with the adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend his case, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the order, hence it suffers with no infirmity. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Undisputed fact in this case is that opposite party no.1 was departmentally proceeded while working as Special Officer for commission of misconduct, the departmental proceeding has been concluded imposing punishment which has been challenged by opposite party no.1 before the Tribunal on the ground that adequate and sufficient opportunity has not been given to him to the effect that copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice has not been served and as such the same is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra), taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the Tribunal has quashed the order. 5. We, after going through the order passed b y the Tribunal have found that the Tribunal has taken note of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ramzan but the said proposition of law has been said to be not a good law after the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MD, ECIL (supra) whereby and whereunder the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the fact that non-supply of copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice ip-so-facto will not vitiate the departmental proceeding rather the delinquent employee is to show what prejudice has been caused due to non-supply of copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice. 6. After pronouncement of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL (supra), the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra) since has been held to be not a good law but the Tribunal without appreciating this aspect of the matter has quashed the order putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra), hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable, accordingly quashed. 7. Ramzan (supra) since has been held to be not a good law but the Tribunal without appreciating this aspect of the matter has quashed the order putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Ramzan (supra), hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable, accordingly quashed. 7. The specific case of opposite party no.1 is that he has not been supplied copy of the enquiry report as also the second show cause notice, we are conscious of the fact that if major punishment being imposed upon the Government employee, it is the requirement of law that adequate and sufficient opportunity ought to have provided to the concerned employee on the principle that punishment cannot be imposed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the delinquent employee, keeping this fact into consideration we are of the considered view that the order of punishment is not sustainable and the enquiry is restored from the stage of second show cause notice, accordingly the Disciplinary Authority is directed to supply copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The opposite party no.1 is directed to file reply within three weeks thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority immediately after receipt of the reply from the opposite party no.1 shall take final decision within further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such reply by the opposite party no.1. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation and direction made hereinabove.