UDAYANATH ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Revenue Inspector in the district of Ganjam under the administrative control of the Collector, was by an order Annexure-1 dated 24-12-1962 passed by the Collector placed under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceedings against him. Sixteen charges enumerated in Annexure-2 were framed against him and he was caned upon to put in his explanation in writing within 15 days and show cause why he should not be suitably punished. The Second Officer, Bhanjanagar was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation (Annexure-3) to all the charges which were considered by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report (Annexure-A) to the Collector. On perusal of the report, the Collector found the Petitioner guilty of charges 1 and 6 only and exonerated him of the other charges. In the order Annexure-4 dated 22-8-1968 passed by the Collector, he has given detailed reasons in support of his findings and passed the following order of punishment:

(2.) This application came up in the first instance before a Division Bench of this Court before whom it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that on the authority of a Bench decision of this Court in Brahmananda Satpathy Vs. State of Orissa, 1969 C.L.T. 874 : AIR 1969 Orissa 224 , the Petitioner was entitled to B further notice to show cause before the order of suspension was passed against him. Although the Bench felt that Brahmananda Satpathy Vs. State of Orissa, 1969 C.L.T. 874 : AIR 1969 Orissa 224 , was distinguished on facts yet in view of their opinion that the law in that case has been somewhat widely stated, this case has been referred to a larger Bench to decide the question whether even in a case where the delinquent is not exonerated of 0.11 the charges and a minor penalty is imposed under Rule 13(i) to (v) of the Rule As, he is entitled to a further notice. This is how the case has come up before us.

(3.) Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) enumerates the penalties which may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a Government servant. Item (iii) there of provides for withholding of increments or promotion and item (v) provides for suspension. Rule 16 which provides procedure for imposing minor penalties runs thus:-