JAGANNATH MOHAPATRA Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
S. Acharya, J. -
(1.) THE Petitioner was a confirmed Compositor of the Maharaja Sriramchandra Utkal University Press. He has been removed from service with effect from 9 -6 -1975 by the then Administrator of the Utkal University as per his order by that date (Annexure 11) on the allegations that (1) he remained absent from duty without prior permission and sanction of leave and (2) he was absent from duty without intimation on several occasions. His appeal to the Chancellor having been rejected he has preferred this writ petition against the order of his removal from service.
(2.) AT the time when the said order of removal from service was passed by the Administrator, the Utkal University (Taking over of Management) Act, 1974 was in force. That Act in Section 4(d) provided that.
The Administrator shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Senate, syndicate and the Vice -Chancellor under the Utkal University Act, Statutes and Regulations.
So, for all intents and purposes the Administrator at the relevant time was action as and exercising the powers of the Vice -Chancellor under the Act, Statutes and Regulations. The Petitioner had been appointed by the Registrar of the Utkal University with the approval of the Vice -Chancellor. While the Petitioner was working in the University Press be was served with the charges framed against him as per Annexure 5 dated 7/9 -1 -1975, and a departmental proceeding was started against him. In consequence of the said departmental proceeding the Petitioner, by the order of the Administrator dated 9 -6 -1975 (Annexure 11), was removed from his service with effect from the said date on the grounds stated above. The above facts are not disputed.
The grounds on which the impugned order of removal (Annexure 11) is challenged by the Petitioner and the grounds on which the same is defended by the opposite party shall be dealt with below so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition.
(3.) DR . Dash, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset urged that the departmental proceeding -initiated against the Petitioner was illegal and unconstitutional from its very inception as the same was not conducted in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice and was in clear violation of the relevant rules. It is asserted in the writ petition and submitted by Dr. Dash, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the provisions of the Orissa Service Code and the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.C.A. Rules') mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Utkal University including the Petitioner so far as they are not inconsistent with any provision in the Acts, Statutes and Regulations of the Utkal University, and accordingly the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner should have been m strict accordance with the procedure laid down In the C.C.A. Rules. In this connection it is urged by Dr. Dash that it was illegal on the part of the concerned authority to appoint the Inquiring Officer simultaneously with the framing of the charges and to direct the Petitioner to submit his written statement of defence directly to the Inquiring Officer. It is stated that the disciplinary proceeding so initiated is directly in contravention of the pre -emptory requirements of the C.C.A. Rules, and hence the order passed in the said disciplinary proceeding cannot be sustained. From the record of the proceedings against the Petitioner, shown to us by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, it is quite evident that the inquiring Officer was appointed simile, tenuously with the framing of the charges against the Petitioner. That fact is not disputed by the opposite party and is evident from Annexure 5 to the writ petition (Registrar's letter dated 7/9 -1 -1975 to the Petitioner enclosing the charges and asking the Petitioner to send his explanation to Shri B. Misra. Assistant Registrar (Ac.) who had been appointed the Inquiring Officer in this case). The learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, states that the C.C.A. Rules, so far as the same relate to the procedure for conducting the departmental proceedings, do not apply to the employees of the Utkal University and so the University authorities were not bound to follow the said Rules in this case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.