MAYADHAR SATPATHY Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
The Director Of Agriculture And Food Production And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
B.K. Patra, J. -
(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director of Food Production in 1943. In due course he was promoted as Head Clerk, and round about the year 1958 he was serving under the Biochemist. In the year 1960, the audit report for the period the Petitioner was under the Biochemist was published and it was found that a sum of Rs. 60/ - had been misappropriated by the Petitioner. Doubtless the Petitioner deposited this amount immediately but for this delinquency a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in 1961. The matter was enquired into, and at the conclusion of the enquiry he was found guilty, and by an order dated 3 -3 -1962 passed by the Director of Agriculture, the following punishments imposed upon him:
(1) His promotion was stopped for 5 years;
(2) His increment was stopped for 6 years; and
(3) He was to pay Rs. 100/ -, the amount he misappropriated.
(2.) THE Petitioner made some representations to his departmental authorities, and being unsuccessful he has filed this writ application praying for an order quashing the order of punishment passed against him (Annexure -1) on the grounds firstly that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding, and secondly that the order imposing upon him multiple punishments is bad in law. The State in its counter inter alia contended that all reasonable opportunities had been given to the Petitioner to defend himself in the departmental proceeding; that he was found guilty by the enquiring officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and that the rules do not prohibit imposition of one or more of the penalties enumerated in Annexure -1.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of this application Mr. R. Mohanty learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did riot press his contention based on the averment that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the Petitioner. He confined his arguments to the second ground namely that imposition upon the Petitioner of the three penalties enumerated above is bad in law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.