Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 628 (ORI)

Krushna Chandra Swain v. State of Orissa

2016-08-10

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a quondam employee of Gopabandhu English Medium School, challenges the order of termination dated 10.05.2002 passed by the Chief Engineer & Director, Water and Land Management Institute (hereinafter referred to as “WALMI”), Pratap Nagari, Cuttack vide Annexure-15 and the enquiry report. 2. The case of the petitioner is that WALMI is an institute of the Government of Orissa, Water Resources Department. It was established in the year 1985 under the World Bank Project. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the institute is to impart training in action research and adoptive research in the field of agriculture/irrigation. The institute used to receive grant-in-aid from the State Government. The institute had more than 200 numbers of employees belong to different categories. There was no English Medium School for primary education of small children of that area. It was difficult on the part of the employees to send small children by bus to other schools. In view of the same, it was decided to establish a school to provide education facility to the children of the employees working in WALMI. It was also decided that the children of the locality would also be entertained. While matter stood thus, the Governing Council of WALMI in its 17th meeting held on 28.4.1992 approved the proposal for establishment of primary school. The school was started with LKG classes in the month of June, 1992. A project report was prepared indicating the staff requirement and class to be opened upto Standard-III including the expenditure to be incurred in that regard. The school in the name and style of Gopabandhu English Medium School was established by the WALMI. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner, who possessed the necessary qualification, was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis in the school on 30.7.1994. His service was regularized vide order dated 31.1.1996, Annexure-2. Subsequently, he was kept in-charge Principal of the school. He discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Without any rhyme or reason all of a sudden the WALMI authorities on verbal instruction to the petitioner to close down the school. On 27.06.2001, a charge-sheet was served on him to enquire into the following charges. Subsequently, he was kept in-charge Principal of the school. He discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Without any rhyme or reason all of a sudden the WALMI authorities on verbal instruction to the petitioner to close down the school. On 27.06.2001, a charge-sheet was served on him to enquire into the following charges. “The enhancement of tuition fees for each class was made in this office order No.3892, dt.8.10.99 and copy was displayed in the School Notice Board and copy sent to all executive members in this office Memo No. 3894, dt.8.10.99 and 3895, dt.8.10.99 respectively for collecting the tuition fees along with the arrears by Oct’99 positively (copy enclosed). Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher in charge of the admission of students and collection of tuition fees, did not follow the order of the authority and violated the Order No.3892, dt.8.10.99 resulting a loss to the revenue of the Institution. On verification of the School records, it is found that the basic information like; date of birth of the students, name of the father, permanent address of the local guardians (where necessary) etc. are not recorded properly in the admission register. On being asked, Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher explained in a confusing manner with the hostile attitude which is not desirable from an employee. This indicates the sub-ordination of the Asst. Teacher. Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher of the Gopabandhu English Medium School, WALMI is operating a Savings Bank Account for the transaction of the School Cash without approval of the Competent Authority. Sri Swain is collecting the admission fees, tuition fees from the students in each year and depositing the amounts in the Bank Account unauthorisedly instead of depositing the same in the WALMI Head Office. Sri Swain is withdrawing the cash from the said Bank Account to meet the expenditure at his sweet will, whereas parallelly, money is being issued from the WALMI Head Office on request of Sri Swain for conducting/observing the functions like Independence Day, 26th January, Ganesh Puja, Saraswati Puja, etc. in the School. The details of the receipts of funds in the School expenditure incurred during the year in the School are not being submitted to the Head Office by Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher along with the documentary evidence. Sri Swain, Asst. in the School. The details of the receipts of funds in the School expenditure incurred during the year in the School are not being submitted to the Head Office by Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher along with the documentary evidence. Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher, keeps the Head Office in dark so far as the annual receipts and expenditure of the School is concerned. Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher was requested in this office Lr. No.1163, dt.16.4.2001 (WE) and 1190, dt.18.4.2001 for furnishing the informations from the year (1992-93) to (1999-2000). Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher furnished the informations in an abstract form without any documentary evidence. Compliance report of Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher on this account are not at all satisfactory and for beyond the transparency. From the aforesaid statements, it is construed that Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher, is in habit of (i) Disobeying the orders of the authorities; (ii) Non-maintenance of the School Records in proper manner; (iii) Non-maintenance of the Annual accounts of the School with transparency, as a result causing embarrassing situation to the administration so far as the informations of the students are concerned and causing loss to the Institute. There is also clear evidence in apprehending misappropriation of public money (School Cash) by Sri K.C. Swain, Asst. Teacher. Sri Swain, Asst. Teacher is squarely responsible for such dislocations and disturbance in management of the Gopabandhu English Medium School functioning under the Institute, WALMI.” He filed number of representations for supply of the documents. The Deputy Director made an assurance on 13.11.2001 that the documents required by him were ready and he could inspect the same in the office and take down the extract of the documents. He made representation on 15.11.2001 to the Chief Engineer and Director, WALMI to intimate the date for perusal of the records. No step was taken by the opposite parties. Again on 24.11.2001, he intimated the Chief Engineer and Director that though he was personally present in the office on 1.8.2001 to 3.8.2001 and 22.11.2001 and asked for certain documents as per the list, but he was not allowed to inspect the same. Again, he requested the opposite parties to provide him opportunity for inspection of the documents so as to submit his reply. He had also drawn the attention of the Government, Department of Water Resources about the same. Again, he requested the opposite parties to provide him opportunity for inspection of the documents so as to submit his reply. He had also drawn the attention of the Government, Department of Water Resources about the same. The Under Secretary to the Government in its Water Resources Department sent a letter dated 4.12.2001 to the Chief Engineer and Director, WALMI requesting him to take steps for supply of documents to the petitioner. But then, the documents had not been supplied to him. While the matter stood thus, Deputy Director, WALMI, opposite party no.3, passed an order on 31.12.2001 stating therein that he had been directed by the President, WALMI to conduct the enquiry against him. He was asked to remain present in his office on 2.2.2002. The Deputy Director was shown as a witness for the management in the list of witnesses vide Annexure-3. But then, he was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He protested to the same and submitted his grievance petition before the competent authority. On 1.2.2002, he filed a representation stating therein that since the documents had not been supplied to him, it was difficult for him to prepare explanation. He had also sent another representation to the President, WALMI that Mr. L.R. Hati, Deputy Director, who was shown as management witness in the list of witnesses had been appointed as Enquiry Officer which was not permissible under law. It is further stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in one day. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer and expressed his inability to defend the case due to non-availability of documents. The enquiry was conducted in a most perfunctory manner. On 26.2.2002, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report. On the same day, a letter was issued by the Chief Engineer to the Professor (Engineering), WALMI directing him to serve the copy of the enquiry report on him. In the said letter, he was instructed to submit a report within fifteen days. After coming to known about the aforesaid letter, he made a representation on 11.2.2002 reiterating his earlier stand that the documents had not been supplied to him, enquiry had been conducted in a perfunctory manner and due to non-supply of the documents he was not in a position to submit his explanation to the charges. Instead of supplying the documents, the opposite party no.3 had terminated his services on 10.5.2002 vide Annexure-15. Instead of supplying the documents, the opposite party no.3 had terminated his services on 10.5.2002 vide Annexure-15. With this factual scenario, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.1 to 3. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties is that WALMI is an Autonomous Body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is governed by the Governing Council. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Water Resources, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is the President of Governing Council. With regard to supply of documents, it is stated that the petitioner was duly intimated vide WALMI letter No.3958 dated 20.11.01 to peruse the records called for by him on 22.11.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner perused the records on 22.11.2001 in the WALMI office from 10 AM to 5 PM. The said fact was intimated to the Department of Water Resources, Government of Orissa vide letter No.4289 dated 11.12.2001 and letter No.1615 dated 19.4.2002. Though in the charge-sheet dated 27.6.2001 vide Annexure-3, the Deputy Director, WALMI had been cited as a witness for the management, but then vide office order dated 10.1.2002, he was appointed as the Enquiring Officer and the Professor (Engineering), WALMI was directed to be the witness for the management. On 2.1.2002, the petitioner reported himself before the Enquiry Officer with all relevant records of the “Gopabandhu English Medium School” and participated in the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the petitioner, having participated in the disciplinary proceeding, is estopped in law to challenge the procedure followed in the disciplinary proceeding. The allegation of bias and malafide against the WALMI management is baseless. 4. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the notice dated 1.2.2002 for discontinuance of admission into LKG, UKG and STD-I classes of the School has been challenged by the parents and staff of WALMI in O.J.C. No.5428 of 2002. By order dated 17.6.2002 in Misc. Case No.5663 of 2002, operation of the letter dated 1.2.2002 was stayed and as such the school is continuing by virtue of the said order. It is further stated that an advertisement was issued by the opposite parties in daily newspaper for taking over the school. Pursuant to the same, S.C.B. Medical Public School was inducted in the name and style of Gopabandhu Children Academy. It is further stated that an advertisement was issued by the opposite parties in daily newspaper for taking over the school. Pursuant to the same, S.C.B. Medical Public School was inducted in the name and style of Gopabandhu Children Academy. The same was given in the occupation of Qr. No.C-5 of WALMI campus. The said advertisement is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6395 of 2002. During pendency of the said writ petition, the Gopabandhu Children Academy expressed its unwillingness to run the school and requested for closure of the school vide its letter dated 16.2.2004. Accordingly, the writ petition was withdrawn on 25.1.2005 being infructuous. It is further stated that the school is continuing since its inception. An additional affidavit has been filed by the WALMI stating therein that Gopabandhu English Medium School has been closed down w.e.f.12.4.2002. Be it noted that O.J.C. No.5428 of 2002 was dismissed for non-prosecution and W.P.(C) No.6395 of 2002 was dropped as not pressed. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Department of Water Resources in O.J.C. No. 5428 of 2002 pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2011. The said affidavit is filed in the wake of the order passed by this Court in different writ petitions including the present one and direction was issued to the State Government, Water Resources Department to take a decision as to whether the disputed school can be allowed to run inside the premises of the WALMI to the benefit of the children of the employees of the WALMI as well as the locality. It is stated that the school was running in the campus of WALMI by Shri K.C. Swain, Asst. Teacher without any financial support or involvement of the WALMI. Mr. K.C. Swain had been terminated from services. Only one child of WALMI staff was reading in the school. WALMI’s administration and management had been entrusted to the Governing Council wherein the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of Water Resources Department is the President. Specific stand has been taken that no student of any employee of WALMI was prosecuting study in the school. 6. Heard Mr. Jagannath Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties. 7. Mr. Specific stand has been taken that no student of any employee of WALMI was prosecuting study in the school. 6. Heard Mr. Jagannath Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties. 7. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had requested to the disciplinary authority to supply the documents basing on the charges had been framed. He had also sent number of representations/reminders, but the documents had not been supplied to him and as such the petitioner was not in a position to defend his case. He further stated that Er. L.R. Hati, Deputy Director, WALMI was shown as a witness in the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet. In spite of vehement objection of the petitioner, he was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges and submitted the report. Thus the entire proceeding is vitiated, since the same is an infraction of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the school in question really exists. A Division Bench of this Court appointed the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court on 8.8.2002 in O.J.C. No.5428 of 2002. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Registrar (Admn.) submitted his report stating therein that the school in question really exists. To buttress the submission, Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 , Rattanlal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 and State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 . 8. Per contra, Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties at the outset reminded the Court on the scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings. He submitted that scope of interference in the disciplinary matter is extremely limited. He further submitted that the school in question had been closed w.e.f.12.04.2002. He submitted that the petitioner was asked number of times to peruse the documents. The petitioner perused the documents in WALMI office on 22.11.2001 from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and participated in the enquiry. He further submitted that the school in question had been closed w.e.f.12.04.2002. He submitted that the petitioner was asked number of times to peruse the documents. The petitioner perused the documents in WALMI office on 22.11.2001 from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding inter alia that the charges had been proved. After providing copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination. The petitioner had accepted his enquiry report without any demur or protest. He further submitted that since the school in question had been closed w.e.f. April, 2002, the writ petition has become infructuous. According to Mr. Ray pursuant to decision of WALMI, the Principal, S.C.B. Medical Public School took over the school for functioning of the school, namely, Gopabandhu Children’s Academy from 22.4.2002. Gopabandhu Children’s Academy is functioning since 5.5.2002. Drawing attention to this Court to the order dated 11.2.2004 passed in Misc. Case No.4285 of 2003 arising out of W.P.(C) No.6395 of 2002 he submitted that the order of termination passed by the opposite parties has been confirmed in the said case and as such the present writ petition is barred by res judicata. Mr. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties submitted that since the School had been closed, the writ petition has become infructuous. 9. The statement of facts and issues identifies three issues: (i) Whether the Gopabandhu English Medium School is functioning in the WALMI campus ? (ii) Whether the proceeding is vitiated for non-supply of documents basing on which the article of charges had been framed ? (iii) Whether the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated in appointing Er. L.R. Hati, Deputy Director, WALMI as Enquiry Officer, who had been shown as the management witness ? Issue Nos.2 and 3 10. In Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra), the person who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for disobeying his own orders; appointed his subordinate as an inquiry officer; appeared as a witness in the proceedings to prove the charges of disobedience of his orders; accepted the enquiry report; and further passed the order of punishment, i.e., dismissal of the appellant from service. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of termination before the appellate authority. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of termination before the appellate authority. The same having been dismissed, he filed claim application before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was eventually dismissed. The matter went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held thus:- “23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, rejected a submission made on behalf of the State that there was nothing wrong with the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal appearing as a witness and deciding the same case, observing as under: (AIR p.91, para 7) "7…….The two roles could not obviously be played by one and the same person.......the act of Shri B.N. Bhalla in having his own testimony recorded in the case indubitably evidences a state of mind which clearly discloses considerable bias against the respondent. If it shocks our notions of judicial propriety and fair play, as indeed it does, it was bound to make a deeper impression on the mind of the respondent as to the unreality and futility of the proceedings conducted in this fashion. We find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the rules of natural justice were completely discarded and all canons of fair play were grievously violated by Shri. B.N. Bhalla continuing to preside over the trial. Decision arrived at by such process and order founded on such decision cannot possibly be regarded as valid or binding." 24. A similar view was taken by this Court in Rattan Lal Sharma v. Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School & Ors. observing that a person cannot be a witness in the enquiry as well as the inquiry officer. 25. The legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no man shall be a judge in his own cause) is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Vide Secy. to Govt., Transport Deptt. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen and Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar). 26. This Court in A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat, placed reliance upon the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has dealt with in any capacity. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen and Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar). 26. This Court in A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat, placed reliance upon the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has dealt with in any capacity. The failure to observe this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. Therefore, law requires that a person should not decide a case wherein he is interested. The question is not whether the person is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. 27. The existence of an element of bias renders the entire disciplinary proceedings void. Such a defect cannot be cured a the appellate stage even if the fairness of the appellate authority is beyond dispute. (Vide S. Parthasarthy v. State of A.P. and Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamla Prasad Shukla). 28. In Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with an identical case wherein an employee serving in the Northern Railway had been dismissed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent on a charge of misconduct which concerned himself, after considering by himself the explanation given by the employee against the charge and after thinking that the employee was not fit to be retained in service. It was also considered whether in such a case, the court should deny the relief to the employee, even if the court comes to the conclusion that order of punishment stood vitiated on the ground that the employee had been guilty of habitual acts of indiscipline/ misconduct. This Court held that the order of dismissal passed against the employee stood vitiated as it was in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The main thrust of the charges against the employee related to his conduct qua the disciplinary authority itself, therefore, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to sit in judgment over the explanation furnished by the employee and decide against the delinquent. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. Any one who had a personal stake in an enquiry must have kept himself aloof from the enquiry. The court further held that in such a case it could not be considered that the employee did not deserve any relief from the court since he was habitually guilty of acts subversive of discipline. The illegality from which the order of dismissal passed by the Authority concerned suffered was of a character so grave and fundamental that the alleged habitual misbehaviour of the delinquent employee could not cure or condone it. 29. Thus, the legal position emerges that if a person appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be an inquiry officer nor can he pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority. This rule has been held to be sacred. An apprehension of bias operates as a disqualification for a person to act as adjudicator. No person can be a Judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Any one who has personal interest in the disciplinary proceedings must keep himself away from such proceedings. The violation of the principles of natural justice renders the order null and void.” (Emphasis laid) 11. Be it noted that Rattanlal Sharma (supra) was followed in Mohd. Yunus Khan. 12. In State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 , the apex Court relying the earlier decision in the case of Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC in paragraph 32 of the report held thus:- “32. This Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC page 229 : ( AIR 1986 SC 2118 ), had clearly stated the rationale for the rule requiring supply of copies of the documents, sought to be relied upon by the authorities to prove the charges levelled against a Government servant. In that case the enquiry proceedings had been challenged on the ground that non supply of the statements of the witnesses and copies of the documents had resulted in the breach of rules of natural justice. The appellant therein had requested for supply of the copies of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses at a preliminary enquiry. The appellant therein had requested for supply of the copies of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses at a preliminary enquiry. The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the disciplinary authority. In considering the importance of access to documents in statements of witnesses to meet the charges in an effective manner this Court observed as follows: "When a government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request made by the appellant in this behalf. Perhaps the disciplinary authority made it a prestige issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question: "What is the harm in making available the material?" and weighed the pros and cons, the disciplinary authority could not reasonably have adopted such a rigid and adamant attitude. On the one hand there was the risk of the time and effort invested in the departmental enquiry being wasted if the courts came to the conclusion that failure to supply these materials would be tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. On the other hand by making available the copies of the documents and statements the disciplinary authority was not running any risk. There was nothing confidential or privileged in it." It was held that non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant. There was nothing confidential or privileged in it." It was held that non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant. It was further held that the proposition of law that a government employee facing a department enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statement, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any further reiteration. 13. The instant case may be examined on the anvil of the decisions cited supra. 14. The stand of the petitioner is that he had filed representations before the disciplinary authority to supply the documents. He had also sent number of reminders. But the documents had not been supplied to him. On the other hand, the opposite parties stated that the petitioner was duly intimated vide WALMI letter No. 3958 dated 20.11.01 to peruse the records. Accordingly, the petitioner perused the records on 22.11.2001 in the WALMI office from 10 AM to 5 PM. In spite of repeated request made by the petitioner for supply of documents, the opposite parties allowed him to inspect the record on 22.11.2001. The reason for not supplying the documents to the petitioner has not assigned. Failure to supply the documents tentamounts to denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case as held by the apex Court in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The petitioner has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend his case. 15. Further Er. L.R. Hati, Deputy Director, WALMI had been shown as management witness. He was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Though the petitioner made protest, but then he proceeded with the enquiry. When a protest was made, it was incumbent on the part of the opposite party no.2 to change the Enquiry Officer. Appointment of Er. L.R. Hati as Enquiry Officer is an infraction of principles of natural justice and renders the order null and void. 16. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated due to non-supply of documents and appointment of Er. L.R. Hati as Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the order of punishment is quashed. Issue No.3 17. 16. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated due to non-supply of documents and appointment of Er. L.R. Hati as Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the order of punishment is quashed. Issue No.3 17. Though Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the school in question really exists, but on an anatomy of the pleadings of the parties and the documents, the submission is difficult to fathom. Be it noted that one Bhikari Charan Rout and four others have filed a writ petition being O.J.C. No.5428 of 2002 assailing the letter of the management of WALMI for discontinuance of admission of students into LKG, UGK and Standard-I classes in Gopabandhu English Medium School and the advertisement dated 3.2.2002 in the daily newspaper ‘The Samaj’ inviting the public enterprise/private organization/individual to take over the School. Pursuant to the direction made by a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Case No.7096 of 2002 arising out of O.J.C. No.5428 of 2002, the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court visited the School in question, held enquiry, recorded the statement of the witnesses for the petitioner including the petitioner and other independent witnesses. Thereafter he submitted a report with the following findings. “(I) The Gopabandhu English Medium School is being run on the road side without any assistance from the WALMI Authorities; (II) The Principal of SCB Medical Public School does not look after the management and administration of this Gopabandhu English Medium School; (III) There has been fall in the management and administration as well as quality of education of the Gopabandhu English Medium School; (IV) The students of the Gopabandhu English Medium School are sitting in a pitiable condition on the road side, exposed to sun and rain to attend the classes. During heavy rain classes are being suspended at times; (V) The Gopabandhu English Medium School is without any management and administration at present. But the old students of the school continue to attend their classes in this school notwithstanding opening of a new school in another building by the Principal, SCB Medical Public School.” 18. The report shows that Gopabandhu English Medium School was without any management and administration. Another school namely, S.C.B. Medical Public School had been opened. Gopabandhu English Medium School was being run on the road side. The report shows that Gopabandhu English Medium School was without any management and administration. Another school namely, S.C.B. Medical Public School had been opened. Gopabandhu English Medium School was being run on the road side. All the witnesses stated before the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court that the WALMI authorities locked the school building and the classes were going on the road side in front of the school. The petitioner stated that he continued to run the school in front of the school building. The students had attended the classes on road side in open air exposed to sun and rain and when it was not possible to take classes on the road side due to rain and bad weather, he used to take classes in his residence. It is difficult to comprehend that the school is running on the road side and the students are exposed to sun and rain for the last sixteen years. The assertion of the petitioner that when it was not possible to take classes on the road side due to rain and bad weather, he used to take classes in his residence, is also difficult to fathom. 19. In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs and on a cursory perusal of the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Water Resources Department on 23.3.2011, the conclusion is irresistible that Gopabandhu English Medium School is not in existence. 20. Next question; What is the relief ? In view of the fact that the school in question does not exist, no relief can be granted to the petitioner except quashing the order of termination. The writ application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.