RAMAKANTA RATH Vs. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner faced a departmental proceeding while working as Senior Assistant -cum -Peskar in this Court and was found guilty Indian Law Reports, Cuttack Series [2011] of the charge. As a major punishment, he was reduced to the lower post i.e. Junior Assistant on time scale with seniority above all the incumbents in that time scale and the period of suspension was treated as such. The appeal preferred against the order of punishment having been rejected, he has filed this writ application challenging initiation of departmental proceeding, the order of punishment as well as the order of appellate authority. The facts leading to initiation of departmental proceeding against the Petitioner are that in June, 1999, the Petitioner was working as Peskar in the Court of one of the Hon'ble Judges. During Summer Vacation, O.J.C. No. 6526 of 1999 was taken up for admission along with Misc. Case No. 6053 of 1999. This case was taken up by the Hon'ble Judge during vacation in whose Court the Petitioner was working as Peskar. In the said Misc. Case, an interim order was passed directing the Petitioner therein to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ -against Bill No. 1860 dated 4.5.1999. The said order was subsequently tampered by erasing the digit '4' and inserting the digit '2' in its place. The first certified copy of the order was granted to the advocate's clerk on 4.6.1999 and the second certified copy there of was 54 granted on 8.6.1999. The record in question was sent to the copying Section for issuance of both the certified copies and on 5.6.1999, it is alleged that the Petitioner personally brought back the record from the copying department by endorsing his signature on the register meant for receipt of Court's order. The documents for preparation of certified copies were sent by the Petitioner to the copying department on 4.6.1999 and 7.6.1999. On 22.6.1999, the Petitioner is alleged to have taken the said register from the copying department and returned the same sometime thereafter and it was noticed that the portion carrying the signature of the Petitioner in the said register had been torn away and, accordingly, the Petitioner was charged for interpolation of the orders of the Court. He was also charged for having deliberately refused to receive the order of suspension even though he was present in the Court premises on 20.7.1999. On the above allegations, Departmental Proceeding No. 2 of 1999 was initiated against the Petitioner and he was served with a copy of charge memo.

(2.) THE Petitioner submitted his reply to the said allegations stating therein that the dictation was taken by the Stenographer and as an abundant caution he made a note with regard to the amount directed to be deposited in the cause list. As per usual practice, on an application being made by the Petitioner in the writ petition, the record of the concerned case was sent to the copying department along with a Court Transit Register by the Bench Peon for grant of certified copy of the order. On 3.6.1999 the order was passed in the aforesaid writ application and on 4.6.1999 the record had been given to the copying department along with the copy application and Bench Ramakanta Rath v. Ramakanta rath [ L. MOHAPATRA, J.] Transit Register. He further stated in his reply that he had no occasion to take the records of the said case from the copying department nor had he received the same at any time after certified copy of the order was granted on 4.6.1999. On 22.6.1999 only during lunch hour he came to know that the figure Rs. 4,50,000/ -appearing in the order dated 3.6.1999 had been tampered to read as Rs. 2,50,000/ -. According to the Petitioner, when the record was sent to the copying department for grant of certified copy, the figure Rs. 4,50,000/ -was appearing in the order. He basically denied any knowledge regarding tampering of the said order.

(3.) AFTER submission of reply, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and inquiry was conducted. Some witnesses were examined in course of inquiry and several documents were also exhibited. The Inquiry Officer found that record in the said case had been supplied by the Petitioner through P.W.4 to the copying department and there is no doubt that the Petitioner was the custodian of the record as on and from it was listed, but there was nothing to show that the record was handed over to the Section at any time before Summer Vacation. During this period, the record moved from the Petitioner to the copying section from where the Petitioner himself collected the record and reliance in this regard was placed by the Inquiry Officer on the evidence of P. Ws.2 and 3. The Inquiry Officer further found that there is no direct evidence to show that the Petitioner had torn the relevant portion of the record bearing his signature or tampering of the record but the circumstances as appeared from the evidence clearly indicate that the Petitioner had torn the relevant portion. The Inquiry Officer further came to a conclusion that the Petitioner was the custodian of the record at the time application for certified copy was filed and he asked P.W.4 to obtain the copy application from the copying section and thereafter handed over the record to him. On 22.6.1999 he took away the register from the copying department outside the copying section and returned sometime thereafter as stated by P. Ws.2 and 6. The Inquiry Officer further found that there is no evidence to show that the record was dealt with by any person otherwise than the Petitioner before such manipulation was detected except that the record had been sent for preparation of certified copy which was handed over to the applicant in the writ application on 4.6.1999 and 8.6.1999 respectively. The Petitioner having found to be in custody of the record, a presumption was drawn by the Inquiry Officer that it is the Petitioner, who must have interpolated the order when the record was in his custody and, accordingly, found him guilty of the charge. So far as second charge is concerned, the Inquiry Officer also held that the Petitioner deliberately refused to receive the suspension order. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011]