BAIRAGI CHARAN BISOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Bairagi Charan Bisoi
State Of Orissa Represented By Secretary, Transport Department And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
B.K.Ray, J. -
(1.) THERE has been analogous hearing of these two petitions as the points involved are common to both. This judgment therefore will govern both the cases.
(2.) .The Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 781 of 1971 was the Superintendent and the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 782 of 1971 was a Gr. I assistant in the office of the State Transport Authority under the Govt. of Orissa. While the Petitioners were working as such, there was an allegation against them and some others that they misconducted themselves by misrepresenting that truck No. ORC. 5111 belonging to Smt. Urmila Devi, was below 25,000 lbs. laden weight; whereas, actually according to the registration certificate produced before them, the truck had a laden weight of 26,680 lbs. with a view to allow Smt. Urmila Devi in procuring a permit to ply the truck in all motorable roads in the district which gave her pecuniary benefit which she could not have otherwise got to the detriment of the public properties and damage to the public roads. On the aforesaid allegations a charge was framed against the Petitioners and some others and an enquiry was commenced against them by the Member, Administrative Tribunal, Orissa in case No. A T -10/66. The defence of the Petitioners as well as other co -delinquents was the same, and so, there was a common enquiry against all. In the enquiry, the Administrative Tribunal found the Petitioners guilty and recommended stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and of promotion for five years of each of the Petitioners (vide Annexure -2). The Deputy Commissioner (Transport), Orissa, Cuttack passed the final order of punishment (Annexure -4) in terms of the recommendations of the Tribunal. Both the Petitioners thereafter filed these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution at India for a declaration that the order of punishment passed against them was illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction and for other appropriate reliefs.
(3.) THE opposite parties in both the cases in their counter, while denying all the allegations of fact made in the two writ petitions, have asserted that the impugned order is legal and valid.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.