Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Sri Kumar Mohanty, Major Dr. Upendra ... vs State Of Orissa, Represented By The ... on 27 August, 1990

Harekrishna Das vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 April, 1991

The appointment of an inquiring authority prior to receipt of the written statement of defence would also disclose a pre-conceived opinion of the disciplinary authority to compulsorily pursue the charges even though the delinquent might be able to make out in the written statement a case of the charges being not worthwhile. It is however the submission of Mr. Pat-naik, learned counsel for the opposite parties, that the regulations reveal a different scheme from the All India Rules and the Orissa Rules and that under the regulations it is possible to appoint an inquiring authority even prior to receipt of the written statement of defence since while Regulation 10(5) shows that the inquiring authority is to be appointed on receipt of the written statement of defence, yet Rule 10(9) permits the delinquent to appear before the inquiring authority even while he has not submitted any written statement of defence and that such provision would show that an inquiring authority is contemplated to be appointed even when no written statement of defence has been filed. This submission in no way shows the decisions of the Court to be inapplicable. All the rules specifically make provision for appointment of the inquiring authority when no written statement of defence has been filed. It is not open to a delinquent officer to play truant and avoid filing of the written statement and yet claim that the inquiring, authority cannot be appointed until he has filed his written statement. All that Regulation 10(9) provides is that even when the delinquent has failed to submit his written statement and as a consequence the inquiring authority has been appointed, yet he is not deprived of the opportunity to appear before the inquiring authority and participate in the inquiry and is to be afforded opportunity to state his defence. It is to be noted that Rule 8(12) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 makes the same provision as in Regulation 10(9),. It is not that the Court while deciding the case of Rabindranath Mohanty (supra) was oblivious of the significance of R.8 (12) of the Rules concerned. If however it is shown that the inquiring authority has been appointed either simultaneously with the issue of charges or without affording any reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to submit his written statement of defence, such appointment of inquiring authority must be held to be vitiated as it deprives the del inquent to submit his defence for considertation of the disciplinary authority and to persuade it to drop the charges. The proposition however is not an absolute one and is subject to waiver by the delinquent officer either by express words or by his implied conduct of participation in the inquiry without raising any protest against the appointment of the inquiring authority before his written statement of defence has been filed or if the written statement of defence is not filed unjustifiably. Absence of protest at the stage of the appointment or acceptance would show no prejudice to have been caused and the inquiry would not be liable to be called in question on that count alone at an advanced stage or at the conclusion thereof.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Arabinda Panda vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 21 December, 2000

7. The second question that arises for consideration is what will be the status of such employees when the institution becomes an aided one. To answer this question, it is necessary to see a decision of this Court reported in (1993) 1 ATT (HC) 306, (Kumari Sabitri Dash v. State of Orissa and others) wherein this Court held that the moment a School becomes an aided educational institution, its erestwhile teachers who are covered by the staffing pattern would ipso facto become employees of the aided educational institution, but then for good and sufficient reason, a particular teacher may not be so accepted.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - L K Mohapatra - Full Document

Subhranta Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 13 March, 2001

306; Kumari Sabitri Dash v. State of Orissa and others, held that the moment a school becomes an aided educational institution, its erswhile teachers who are covered by the staffing pattern would ipso facto become employees of the aided educational institution, but then, for good and sufficient reason, a particular teacher may not be so accepted. Shri Rath relying on the aforesaid decision submitted that since the petitioner was working as Headmaster of the institution when it came within the fold of grant-in-aid the status of the petitioner has to be taken as such. In reply to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that there was no separate resolution by the Managing Committee of the institution appointing the petitioner as Headmaster after he completed seven years of teaching experience as a Trained Graduate Teacher, the petitioner has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated that the Managing Committee of the institution vide resolution dated 22-5-1995 conferred the status of a regular Headmaster in favour of the petitioner with effect from 9-3-1990 as the petitioner had completed seven years teaching experience as a Trained Graduate Teacher by that date and accordingly allowed Headmaster's scale of pay of Rs.1700-3200/-. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the following facts are clear :
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - L K Mohapatra - Full Document

Sri J. Srinivas Raju vs State Of Orissa & Others ... Opp.Parties on 12 May, 2011

The ratio of the decision of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Mohanty (supra) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the facts and issues involved in both the cases are different. In that case, the petitioner was a licensee in respect of three I.M.F.L. 'OFF' shops in the district of Balasore for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. For each of the three shops, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Collector, Balasore which, inter alia, provided that the petitioner will sell a minimum guaranteed quantity per month. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.12.2000 for reduction of M.G.Q. for the said three shops and by order dated 26.4.2002, the Government of Orissa in the Excise Department allowed a reduction of 20% on the existing M.G.Q. for the three shops for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Pursuant to the said order dated 26.4.2002, the petitioner has been asked to deposit arrear 15 government revenue amounting to Rs.59,79,401/- towards short-drawn M.G.Q. of I.M.F.L. and Beer for the aforesaid three shops during the years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 by a demand notice dated 22.7.2003 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Balasore. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed the said writ petition.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1