Orissa High Court
Ranjit Kumar Nayak vs Fci And Another on 18 August, 2015
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 128 OF 2008
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-------------------
Ranjit Kumar Nayak ......... Petitioner
- versus -
FCI and another ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Sidheswar Mallik, P.K. Das, T.K. Mishra,
B.B. Mohanty
For Opp.Parties: M/s. S. Parida, Smt. R. Mohanty, A.R. Nayak
( for opposite party no.2)
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
Date of hearing: 31.07.2015 | Date of Judgment :18.08.2015
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority vide Annexure- 16 and confirmation thereof made by the appellate authority in Annexure-18.
2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was initially working under a Contractor of the F.C.I., where his nick name was recorded as "Akhaya Kumar" in the records. Subsequently, pursuant to an agreement between the F.C.I. Workers Union and the 2 Management of F.C.I., the labourers working under the Contractor were absorbed in the regular services of the F.C.I. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken into service of the F.C.I. as a labourer in the year 1990. At the time of absorbing in F.C.I. service, the petitioner had to fill up a bio-data form in which he has mentioned his nick name as "Akhaya Kumar", but his father's name and permanent address were correctly reflected. Subsequently, in the year 2002, the opposite parties circulated a notification inviting applications from its employees for change of name and address, if any, for the purpose of recording correct information in the office records. Pursuant to such notification, the petitioner submitted his application in March, 2002 with a prayer for change of his name for recording his good name as "Ranjit Kumar Nayak" in place of his nick name as "Akhaya Kumar". The application of the petitioner was duly recommended by the F.C.I. Union and accordingly, the Senior Regional Manager in his order dated 26.07.2002 corrected his name and changed as "Ranjit Kumar Nayak"
in place of his nick name "Akhaya Kumar" and advised to record this change of name in all F.C.I. records including C.P.F. Biodata and Service Book etc. After more than three years, an enquiry was conducted by the District Manager, F.C.I., Berhampur who sought for report from the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar to provide information regarding the correctness of the information supplied by the petitioner. The Tahasildar deputed the R.I., Sendhapur who after proper enquiry 3 submitted his report to the Tahasildar on 24.11.2005 which clearly reveals that the good name of the petitioner is "Ranjit Kumar Nayak"
and his nick name is "Akhaya Kumar". It is stated that such report has been suppressed by the opposite parties and on the basis of the name recorded in the Voter List, a departmental proceeding was initiated. Ultimately, the charge was framed on 0.04.2006 for impersonation, which has been denied by the petitioner. But without conducting proper enquiry, the petitioner has been found guilty and has been dismissed from service. Against the said order, appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that once the change of nick name was indicated in the record and approved by the authority in Annexure-4, for the self same reason, the proceeding could not have ben initiated against the person concerned. However, without conducting proper Enquiry punishment was imposed against the petitioner. Mr. Mallik raised various questions including the question of fact that R.I. caused the inquiry, and found that the petitioner's nick name is "Akhaya Kumar"
and his good name is "Ranjit Kumar Nayak" and suppressing this fact, the opposite parties have initiated proceeding against him. Accordingly, he seeks for interference of this Court both with the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 4
4. Though Mr. S. Parida, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 has entered appearance for the opposite parties but subsequently, by filing a memo submitted that the brief has been transferred from his Office, consequence thereof, none has entered appearance for opposite parties. However, this being a disciplinary proceeding matter and year old case, on the basis of the materials available on record and counter affidavit filed by opposite parties, this Court proceeded with hearing of the case.
5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, it is apparently clear that name of the petitioner who has been described as "Akhaya Kumar", son of Kailash Chandra Nayak, has been entered as "Ranjit Kumar Nayak", which has been duly approved by the Regional Office, F.C.I., Bhubaneswar. On the basis of the application and recommendation by the F.C.I. Workers Union, a confidential reference was made to the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Bhadrak to intimate the names of sons of Kailash Chandra Nayak, who after enquiry through The Tahasildar, Dhamnagar has forwarded the report vide DO Letter dated 13.01.2006 according to which Kailash Chandra Nayak has two sons, namely, Sri Ranjit Kumar Nayak and Ranjan Kumar Nayak. As per the attested copy of Voter List of Booth No. 82- 20, Dhamnagar furnished by the Officer in-charge, Collectorate, Bhadrak, Sri Kailash Chandra Nayak has two sons namely, Ranjit Kumar Nayak and Ranjan Kumar Nayak, which corroborates the 5 names of sons of Shri Kailash Chandra Nayak as furnished by the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar and no son by name "Akhaya Kumar" is available to Sri Kailash Chandra Nayak. Therefore, it is stated that the said worker was found to have got employment in F.C.I. fraudulently by impersonating his name with malafide intention. In the disciplinary proceeding, enquiry report was submitted which was sent to the petitioner to make representation and the representation submitted by the petitioner having not found convincing, he has been imposed with a penalty of dismissal against which order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause-16(2)(c)(i) of Certified Standing Order. In appeal, the order of Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed.
6. Contention has been raised before this Court that none of the Clauses of the Certified Standing Order including Clause 15(2) constitute a misconduct on the part of the petitioner so as to impose a major penalty of dismissal from service. This is pure question of law. On analysis being made to the contention raised, it is made apparently clear that the R.I. having caused enquiry in Annexure-19, in which it has been stated that one Kailash Chandra Nayak has got two sons namely "Ranjit Kumar Nayak" and "Ranjan Kumar Nayak". The nick name of "Ranjit Kumar Nayak" is "Akhaya Kumar" and nick name of "Ranjan Kumar Nayak" is "Ajaya Kumar". While entering into service, the nick name of the petitioner was entered, but subsequently, on application being invited, the petitioner furnished his actual name as 6 "Ranjit Kumar Naik". Without taking into consideration the report of the R.I, the competent authority, caused the enquiry and found that the petitioner is not the son of Kailash Chandra Nayak and as such, the petitioner has impersonated himself to get an employment in FCI. This finding is absolutely misconceived finding because while causing enquiry, the authority should have applied his mind to the materials available on record. Instead of doing so, the authority has proceeded with the matter without following due procedure of law, inasmuch as, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be construed to be a misconduct within the meaning of Clause-15(2) of the Certified Standing Order so as to bring home the charge of misconduct so as to remove him from service. Apart from the same, there is procedural lapses in the conduct of the enquiry, to mean, that vide Annexure-8 the Enquiry Officer has decided to call Sri G.R. Rath, Manager (Vig.) R.O., FCI, Bhubaneswar for examination on the next date of hearing on 07.09.2006 fixing 22.09.2006 and on 22.09.2006 in Annexure-20, Sri G.R. Rath, Manager (Vig.) R.O., FCI, Bhubaneswar has been examined and cross-examined by the defence Assistant. But on the very same day it is stated that since the charged worker has not given defence witness in his support, the enquiry proceeding was closed meaning thereby, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to establish his case by adducing evidence in support of his contention. Had any opportunity been given, he would have produced the report of the R.I. 7 in support of his contention and as such, the report of the Tahasildar and the report of the R.I. who corroborate to each other to indicate that the petitioner's nick name is "Akhaya Kumar" and as such he has not impersonated himself to get employment under the FCI so as to face the termination in accordance with law. As it appears, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity has been given to the petitioner for producing the evidence in support of his contention. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice and non-compliance of statutory requirement, the order of dismissal as well as confirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority, cannot sustain. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the stage of enquiry which shall be done by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that since it is a year old matter, both the parties are directed to cooperate with each other for early disposal of the proceeding.
7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
...................................
Dr.B.R.Sarangi, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18th August, 2015/Ajaya 8