DANDAPANI GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
STATE OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
PANIGRAHI, J. -
(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ for quashing the order of suspension passed by the opposite party against the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is a probationary Sub -Registrar appointed by the State Government under Section 7, Registration Act. He joined his duties on 26 -11 -1947 and was working as Sub -Registrar at Patrapur from
14 -5 -48. By an order dated 27 -6 -51 of the District Registrar he was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct. The DistrictRegistrar reported the same to the State Govern -merit who passed orders on
2 -8 -52 approving of the action of the District Registrar in suspending the petitioner and allowed him to draw the subsistence allowance according to rules, pending enquiry into his conduct.
The affidavit filed by the opposite party discloses that there were a number of complaints against the petitioner by the villagers of Patrapur about his own behaviour in his official capacity. In particular it was
alleged by them that he was not staying in the village and was often running away from the station. There
had been previous proceedings taken against the petitioner for neglect of duty and for absence from
headquarters. On 14 -6 -1951 the District Registrar received a complaint from one, Ladi Satyanarayana of
Patrapur that the petitioner had left headquarters without permission, falsely asserting that the office was
closed for two days, namely the 15th and 16th June, 1951. On receiving this report the District Registrar
deputed the District Sub -Registrar to verify it and make an inspection of the petitioner's office. The
District Sub -Registrar reached Patrapur at 8 P.M. on 14 -6 -51 and found the petitioner absent. He finished
his enquiry and left Patrapur on the afternoon of 16th June. The Sub -Registrar had not returned till then.
The petitioner was, therefore, charged with having absented himself without permission from the 14th to
the 16th June & that he had unauthorizedly closed his office.
It was also found in the course of the enquiry that the petitioner had registered two documents at 9 P.M.
on 13 -6 -1951, post -dating them to 14 -6 -51 and that he had made false entries in the registers. On receipt
of the District Sub -Registrar's report on 19 -6 -51, the District Registrar reported the matter to the
Inspector -General of Registration, recommending the dismissal of the petitioner as he was only a
probationer and that it was not necessary to draw up any formal proceedings against him. While the
orders of the Inspector -General of Registration were being awaited, on this recommendation, the
petitioner sent a telegram on 26 -6 -51 to the effect that he had actually joined duty and had assumed
charge the previous day but that the villagers were hostile and that he was apprehensive of an attack by
them on his person and the records. On receipt of the telegram the District Registrar proceeded to the
village on 27 -5 -51 to make a further enquiry into the truth or otherwise of this statement. He found the
contents of the telegram to be absolutely false and immediately passed orders suspending the petitioner
pending enquiry as a 'prima facie' case of misconduct had been made out against him. The suspension of
the petitioner was necessary to enable the holding of a formal enquiry, and it was obviously not desirable
that he should be permitted to continue in office while the enquiry was going on.
In the meanwhile, the state Government, acting on the report of the Inspector -General of Registration
asked him to frame draft -charges against the petitioner. But before this was done the petitioner sent a
letter of resignation on 28 -8 -51 which was forwarded by the District Registrar, recommending that it may
be accepted and the proceedings dropped. The Inspector -General of Registration accepted the resignation
of the petitioner on 29 -12 -51 and dropped the proceedings - -subject to the approval of Government. The
matter would have ended there but for the petitioner praying, by another letter dated 21 -1 -52, that his
letter of resignation be treated as withdrawn. The Inspector -General accepted the withdrawal of
resignation on 4 -2 -51. Government, however decided that the suspension should not be terminated and
that the enquiry should be expedited. On 2 -8 -52 charges were framed against the petitioner and he was
asked to submit his explanation, which he did on 2 -9 -52. On 2 -8 -52 Government also passed orders
approving the action of the District Registrar suspending the petitioner and allowed him to draw
subsistence allowance, according to rules, pending enquiry.
(3.) THE present petition was filed on 18 -7 -52 just two weeks prior t to the framing of charges.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.