Subash Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........was continuing as asst. director, sericulture, mayurbhanj. consequently, a show cause notice was issued and charges were framed in consonance with rule 15 of the o.c.s. (cca.) rules 1962. the petitioner showed cause. the authorities being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out appointed manoj kumar ahuja, i.a.s., the director of textiles, as the enquiring officer. thereafter the departmental proceedings continued and the enquiring officer on the basis of the materials produced before him gave preliminary report. the petitioner was directed to file his show cause.2. the grievance of the petitioner was that without serving the enquiry report and other relevant documents, the petitioner was compelled to file his show cause. with the said grievance, he approached the state administrative tribunal by filing o.a. no. 1209 (c) of 2006. the tribunal disposed of the said original application with the following observation:the ends of justice would be met if we clear the dock in the tribunal without proceeding any further in a case where procedural matters are still locked up in a wrangle. accordingly, we dispose of this application with a direction upon the applicant that he.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Petitioner is working as Asst. Director of Seri-Ciilture. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with regard to certain alleged overt acts said to have been committed by him while he was continuing as Asst. Director, Sericulture, Mayurbhanj. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued and charges were framed in consonance with Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (CCA.) Rules 1962. The petitioner showed cause. The authorities being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out appointed Manoj Kumar Ahuja, I.A.S., the Director of Textiles, as the Enquiring Officer. Thereafter the departmental proceedings continued and the Enquiring Officer on the basis of the materials produced before him gave preliminary report. The petitioner was directed to file his show cause.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that without serving the enquiry report and other relevant documents, the petitioner was compelled to file his show cause. With the said grievance, he approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1209 (C) of 2006. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application with the following observation:

The ends of justice would be met if we clear the dock in the Tribunal without proceeding any further in a case where procedural matters are still locked up in a wrangle. Accordingly, we dispose of this application with a direction upon the applicant that he would give reply to the second show cause issued to him within a period of one month raising therein all the contentions he has raised in the O.A. until now in order to bring to their notice if there have been any omissions and only after that the respondents would proceed to pass disciplinary orders. If the applicant will be visited with civil consequences, then he may file afresh application with fresh cause of action.

3. Mr. Pattanayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the authorities have illegally and with material irregularities did not supply the copies of the enquiry report as well as relevant documents to the petitioner to defend his case before passing orders on the second show cause. Consequently, he submitted that the disciplinary proceeding should be quashed. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Md. Ramzan Khan : AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar : AIR 1994 SC 1074.

4. A conscious reading of both the decisions however leads to a conclusion, that, in all cases where enquiry report has not been served are not required to be set aside and only in cases where the petitioner satisfies the Court that due to non-service of the enquiry report grave prejudice has been caused to him, the Court should insist upon service of the enquiry report.

In the case at hand, Mr. Pattanayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ application that due to non-supply of enquiry report great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is also submitted that non-supply of the squad report and other relevant documents also prejudicially affects the rights of the petitioner and he was unable to submit a full-fledged reply.

5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we find some force in the submissions made to the effect that non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner has caused prejudice.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, relying on the ratio of the Md. Ramzan Khan's case (supra), we direct the opposite parties to supply the enquiry report as well as the supporting documents (squad report) to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall file his show cause. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings shall continue and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the petitioner.

7. With the above directions, the writ application is disposed of.