Partly allowed

Sambalpur University v. Satyanarayan Pradhan

Orissa HC22 Sept 2021WA/480/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ appeal by the Sambalpur University challenging the Single Judge's order quashing an employee's dismissal. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that procedural lapses, specifically non-supply of documents and failure to serve the inquiry report, vitiated the proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, thereby upholding the Single Judge's order quashing the dismissal of service.

Sambalpur University Vs Satyanarayan Pradhan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶3

An application under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order, 1948, read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 5^th February, 2015 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.2679 of 2010.

¶4

----------

¶5

Sambalpur University and another …… Appellants

¶6

Versus
Satyanarayan Pradhan and another …... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
For Appellants : Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Sashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶8

JUDGMENT 22^nd September, 2021

¶9

B.P. Routray,J.

¶10

The judgment dated 5^th February, 2015 of the learned Single Judge

¶11

passed in W.P.(C) No.2679 of 2010 wherein the order of dismissal from

¶12

service by the disciplinary authority has been set aside with direction to

¶13

pay all consequential service benefits, is challenged in the present appeal.

¶14

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶15

Page 1 of 11

¶16

Respondent No.1 was the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge

¶17

and the present Appellants were Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 respectively.

¶18

Respondent No.1, Dr. Satyanarayan Pradhan was serving as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth Science in Sambalpur University during the year 1998. For alleged misconduct, a memorandum of charges

¶19

dated 23^rd July, 1998 was served on him along with statement of allegations. There were 7 heads of charges which are reproduced below:

¶20

i) Moral turpitude,

¶21

ii) Conduct improper on the part of an employee of the University and a teacher of the University,

¶22

iii) Misuse of premises of the University,

¶23

iv) Occupying University Guest House without authority,

¶24

v) Collusion with the staff for financial impropriety,

¶25

vi) Misbehaviour with employees of the University,

¶26

vii) Misconduct by suppressing mal-practice report of B.Ed. examination.

¶27

After receipt of the charge memo, Respondent No.1 asked for

¶28

supply of copy of Annexure-A referred in the statement of allegations and copies of statements recorded in course of preliminary inquiry along

¶29

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶30

Page 2 of 11

¶31

with other relevant documents. The copies of such documents as sought for by the Respondent No.1 were not served upon him despite his repeated request. Finally Respondent No.1 submitted his written explanation on 25^th August, 1998 without receiving the copies he asked for.

¶32

A retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the inquiry officer by order dated 27^th January, 1999. In course of inquiry, four witnesses namely, Tribikram Mishra, the officer in charge of University guest house, Sunanda Mohanty, Lecturer of B.Ed. College, Chakradhar Biswal, Centre Superintendent for B.Ed. Examination, and Purusottam Patra, the Administrative Officer of VSS Medical College, Burla – cum - ADM were examined. Upon conclusion of inquiry, the report dated 14^th May, 2000 was submitted.

¶33

The disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry report holding Respondent No.1 guilty of the charges of misconduct and dereliction of duty in its order dated 24^th June, 2000. In the said order punishment of dismissal from service was also proposed and Respondent No.1 was asked to submit his show cause against that proposed punishment. A copy of the inquiry report was enclosed along with said order dated 24^th

¶34

June, 2000 for information of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1

¶35

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶36

Page 3 of 11

¶37

submitted his show cause dated 11^th July, 2000 refuting the findings of inquiry officer and again reiterated his contention for non-supply of relevant documents. Thereafter the final order dated 31^st August, 2000 of dismissal from service amounting to disqualification for future employment was passed with immediate effect.

¶38

Respondent No.1 preferred appeal against the same to the Chancellor

¶39

in terms of Rule 304 of the Orissa Universities 1^st Statute, 1990. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the charges and

¶40

punishment.

¶41

Respondent No.1 then preferred the afore-stated writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is observed that no adequate opportunity has been granted to him before inflicting the major penalty due to non-supply of relevant documents and inquiry report.

¶42

The disciplinary authorities who are the Appellants before us submit

¶43

that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact of service of inquiry report along with second show cause notice on 24^th June, 2000. So, it is incorrect to observe that copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the delinquent. It is further submitted that, even assuming

¶44

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶45

Page 4 of 11

¶46

there is procedural violation in conducting the departmental proceeding, the same cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the delinquent since he had adequate opportunity to defend. It is not that no opportunity was granted to Respondent No.1, but as per him no adequate opportunity was granted. The second show cause reply dated 11^th July, 2000 submitted by Respondent No.1 reveals that he had the opportunity of representing against the finding of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority has considered the same before passing the final order. It is again submitted that the inquiry officer being a retired District and Sessions Judge, the sanctity of inquiry conducted by him should not be questioned. Respondent No.1 participated in the proceeding without raising any objection and also had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined for the department and as such, it is incorrect to

¶47

observe that sufficient opportunity was not granted to him.

¶48

It is seen from the record that altogether 4 delinquents were there including Respondent No.1 and a joint inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer. The imputations are relating to bringing a lady to the University guest house on 19^th May, 1998 and spending time with her in

¶49

Room No.6 along with food and drinking alcohol. Along with Respondent No.1 the other delinquents who faced disciplinary action are

¶50

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶51

Page 5 of 11

¶52

the Technician of Earth Science Department, the Manager and Khansaman of the guest house.

¶53

The root of entire incident is connected to the B.Ed. examination held

¶54

on the same day in University B.Ed. College and the suspected lady was one of the candidates appearing in B.Ed. examination where Respondent No.1 was the observer. Prior to initiation of disciplinary proceeding a

¶55

preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Administrative Officer of the University who submitted his report after recording statement of 13 witnesses. This Administrative Officer is the same witness examined as P.W.4 in the disciplinary inquiry. His preliminary inquiry report along with those 13 statements has been referred as Annexure-A in the statement of allegations appended to the charge memo dated 23^rd July, 1998. The Respondent No.1’s main contention is about non-supply of this Annexure-A to him.

¶56

The central issue involved in the present case is whether sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to Respondent No.1 in the disciplinary proceeding and the principles of natural justice have been followed before imposing the extreme major penalty of dismissal of service against respondent No.1.

¶57

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶58

Page 6 of 11

¶59

The provisions enshrined in the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 is

¶60

applicable to the employees and teachers of Sambalpur University. It is seen from record that Respondent No.1 immediately upon service of the memorandum of charges asked for copies of that Annexure-A along with other documents referred in the statement of allegations appended to the

¶61

charge memo. He went on requesting repeatedly for supply of those documents till last opportunity of submission of his reply on 25^th August, 1998. Here the Appellants’ contention is that, Respondent No.1 was supplied with all relevant documents. So, the main controversy is whether Respondent No.1 was supplied with all such relevant documents he asked for. In such circumstance it is incumbent upon the Appellants, who are the disciplinary authorities, that, they must clearly show the material on record that those relevant documents as asked by Respondent No.1 have been supplied to him. But unfortunately not a single document in this aspect was produced by the Appellants either before the learned Single Judge or before us. So the disciplinary authority have failed in their duty to successfully counter the statement of the delinquent in this regard. This is the first fault noticed on procedural lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority.

¶62

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶63

Page 7 of 11

¶64

It is seen from the inquiry report dated 14^th May, 2000 that the inquiry officer has relied on those documents of the preliminary inquiry to conclude his findings. It is also seen from the inquiry report that 16 exhibits including Annexure-A and statement of Respondent No.1, the Manager of the guest house and the Comptroller of Finance of the University as recorded in course of preliminary inquiry by P.W.4 have been marked and relied upon by the inquiry officer. It needs to be mentioned that in respect of the Comptroller of Finance, disciplinary action has been recommended against him to the Government as the University is not his disciplinary authority. Therefore, as clear from perusal of inquiry report that for concluding guilt of Respondent No.1 on the charges, too much reliance has been placed on those documents which has not been supplied to Respondent No.1 and not only this, but the statements of all those witnesses made before P.W.4 in course of preliminary inquiry has also been relied upon instead of examining them directly before the inquiry officer. The point to be noted here that the allegations are based on personal knowledge of those witnesses examined by P.W.4 in course of preliminary inquiry who were not examined in the disciplinary proceeding. Even the statement of one delinquent made before P.W.4 has been used against present Respondent No.1 as well as that delinquent. So the fundamental principles of proof

¶65

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶66

Page 8 of 11

¶67

has been violated because no one can be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is true that the principles of preponderance of probability is to be followed in disciplinary proceedings and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. In Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572 the Supreme court have observed that, “.. …. the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities ”.

¶68

In the case at hand, the inquiry officer has drawn the conclusion of guilt basing on own statement of one of the delinquent (C.R. Tripathy, the manager of the guest house) made before P.W.4 in coursed of preliminary inquiry, without examining such relevant witnesses who are having direct knowledge of the incident. Neither the lady nor any other witness present during the alleged occurrence have been examined by the inquiry officer. Therefore, the findings of the inquiry officer is vitiated prima facie for violation of fundamental principles.

¶69

On the controversy of supply of inquiry report before passing the final order of extreme penalty, it is seen from the show cause notice that the disciplinary authority after accepting the inquiry report asked the delinquent to submit his show cause reply against the proposed punishment only. It further reveals from the decision of the Syndicate

¶70

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶71

Page 9 of 11

¶72

(the disciplinary authority) appended to the second show cause notice that it has already resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal from service after acceptance of the inquiry report and the Respondent No.1 was only required to show cause as to why he shall not be dismissed from service. In other words, the disciplinary authority treated the procedure of seeking a reply from Respondent No.1 as to the punishment, an empty formality. Rule 15(10) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 clearly mandates service of the inquiry report on the delinquent while calling upon him to submit his representation, if any, against the findings of the inquiry officer. The said rule further requires that after fifteen days of service of inquiry report on the delinquent, the disciplinary authority shall consider the inquiry report together with the representation of the delinquent, if any, for concluding his opinion about

¶73

the proposed punishment and will ask the delinquent to show cause against the proposed punishment. Here, the disciplinary authority acted contrary to law. The consequence is obvious. For non-compliance of substantive procedure, the entire proceeding is vitiated and the punishment is liable to be set aside. This is what was observed by the learned Single Judge who has elaborately discussed on all such points. The learned Single Judge by relying on different rulings of the Supreme

¶74

Court, has passed a very reasoned and justified order to set aside the

¶75

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶76

Page 10 of 11

¶77

impugned orders granting all relief to Respondent No.1. It is hard to find any ground for us to interfere with the same and we agree with the same.

¶78

Resultantly the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶79

//M.K. Panda, Sr. Steno

¶80

(B.P.Routray)
Judge
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice

¶81

W.A. No.480 of 2015

¶82

Page 11 of 11

Sambalpur University v. Satyanarayan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambalpur University v. Satyanarayan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Management,Elcosmos Vs Industrial Tribunal

Birla Tyres Mazdoor Vs State

Laxmi N.Mohapatra Vs Union of Ind.andORS.

Puran Alloy and Steel Vs Commnr.Commercialtax

Khandelwal Tubes and Vs Sales Tax Officer

Puran Alloy and Steel Vs State