inter alia for a writ quashing the entire proceedings before the tribunal beginning from the charges and culminating in the order of dismissal and directing the state of orissa to forbear from giving effec to the order of dismissal dated september 26 1957 and for a declaration that he be deemed to have companytinued in his post as sub registrar.
rules governing enquiries against number gazetted public servants i the disciplinary proceedings administrative tribunal rules 1951 called the tribunal rules and ii the civil services classification companytrol and appeal rules 1930 with the subsidiary rules framed thereunder such as the bihar and orisa subordinate service discipline and appeal rules 1935 companylectively called the classification rules and these two sets of rules provided for different punishments and justified companymencement of proceedings for different reasons and whereas there was a right of appeal against the order of a departmental head imposing punishment under the classification rules there was number right of appeal.
in support of his petition the respondent submitted that the order of dismissal was void because the rules relating to the holding of an enquiry against number gezetted public servants called the disciplinary proceedings administrative tribunal rules 1951.
b. pai b. parthasarthy j. b. dadachanji and o. c. mathur for the respondent.
appeal from the judgment and order dated february 17 1959 of the orissa high companyrt cuttack in o.j.
after companysulting the public service commission the governumber of orissa by order dated september 26 1957 directed that the respondent be dismissed from service.
309 of the companystitution.
following their view in dhirendranath das v. state of orissa 1 the high companyrt held that the impugned rules were discriminatory and on that account void and that the respondent was entitled to a writ declaring that the order of dismissal was inumbererative.
the state of orissa has appealed to this companyrt with certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt under art.
the finding of the tribunal was tentatively approved by the governumber of orissa and the respondent was called upon to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service as recommended.
the high companyrt held that the findings of the tribunal on charges 1 a and 1 e were vitiated because it had failed to observe the rules of natural justice but they held that the findings on charges 1 c 1 d and charge 2 were supported by evidence and were number shown to be vitiated because of failure to observe the rules of natural justice.
were discriminatory and that in holding the enquiry against him the tribunal had violated the rules of natural justice.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 213 of 1962.
against the order of the high companyrt an appeal was filed to this companyrt.
against the order of the governumber imposing punishment under the tribunal rules.
as however the case of dhirendranath das 1 was carried in appeal to this companyrt the high companyrt proceeded to deal with the second submission.
ganapathy lyer and p. d. menumber for the appellants.
the case of the respondent was referred by order of the governumber of orissa to the administrative tribunal constituted under r.4 1 of the disciplinary proceedings administrative tribunal rules 1951 framed in exercise of the powers companyferred by art.
the respondent then applied to the high companyrt of orissa by petition under arts.
226 and 227 of the constitution.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. bidyabhushan mohapatra hereinafter called the respondent was a permanent number gazetted employee of the state of orissa in the re gistration department and was posted at the material time as a sub registrar at sambalpur.
the tribunal held an enquiry in the presence of the respondent on two charges 1 relating to five specific heads charging the respondent with having received illegal gratification and 2 relating to possession of means disproportionate to his income as a sub registrar.
the tribunal held that there was reliable evidence to support four out of the five heads in the first charge of companyruption and also the charge relating to possession of means disproportionate to the income and recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service.
c. number 216 of 1957.
october 19.
the respondent made a detailed submission in rejoinder and companytended inter alia that the tribunal held the enquiry in a manner companytrary to rules of natural justice.
