STATE OF ORISSA versus BIDYABHUSHAN MOHAPATRA

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 19-10-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Jj62 
ST ATE OF ORISSA 
Octoh,,, 19. 
v. 
BIDY ABHUSHAN MOHAPATRA 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA 
and ]. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Public Servant-Disciplinary proceedinf!s-Two pamlttl 
procedures arailable-Rigkt of appeal under one but not under 
the otlier-1/ discriminatory-Punishment-·lf conrt can inttr-
fere wifk-Ori8sa Disciplinary Proceedings (Adtnini.•trative Tri· 
bunal) Rn/es; 1951-Civil Sen·ices (C/a.ss(fication, Control 
and .4JlPeal) RuleR, 1930-CnMtitution o' lndin Art• • ' •on 
311. 
'I 
' 
~ .... ~, .-i "' 
The responclcnt, a non-gazetted permanent employee of 
the State, was charged with (i) having received- iJlegal gratifi • 
cation on five occasions and (ii) heing in possession of propert)' 
disproportionate to his income. The Governor referred hi• 
case to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under s. 4 I l) 
of the Disciplinary Proceeding• (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 
which had been framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution. The 
Tribunal found four out of the five heads under the first charge 
and the second charge proved and recommended the dismissal of 
the respondent. The Go\'ernor, after giving the respondent a rea-
sonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punish-
ment, dismissed him. The respondent filed a \\Tit petition 
before the Hivh Court challenging the order of dismissal on 
the ground that the Tribunal Rules were discriminatory and 
that in holding the enquiry the Tribunal had violated the rules 
of natural justice. Following a previous decision the Hith 
Court held that the Tribunal Rules were diocriminatory but 
since that decision was under appeal before the Supreme Court, 
it proceeded to deal with the second ground. It held that the 
second charge and only two head• of the first charge were 
established and directed the Governor to reconsider whether on 
the basis of these charges the punishment of dismissal should be 
maintained. 
Held, that the Tribunal Ru\es ~cr4 not disGtim.Uiatory, 
There were simultaneously in existence two sets of parallel rules, 
viz the Tribunal Rules and the Classification Rules and procee-
ding. could be taken against the respond~nt under either of 
them at the discretion of the Governor. But m substance there 
I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
649 
is no difference in the procedures prescribed by the tw~ sets of 
rules. 
Mere adoption of one procedure in preference to another 
permissible procedure does not justify an inference of unlawful 
discrimination. The fact that under the Classification Rules 
there is a right of appeal from an order imposing a penalty 
whereas there is no such right of appeal under the Tribunal 
Rules against the order passed by the Governor was not a 
ground for sustaining the plea of unlawful discrimination. 
Sarilar Kapur Singh v. Union of India, (1960] 2 S. C. R. 
569 and Jagannath Prasad v. State of U. P., A I. R. 1961 S. C. 
1245, followed 
State of Orissa v. Dhirendranath Das, A. I. R. ( 1961) 
S. C. 1 715, distinguished . 
• 
HeW., further that the High Court had no power to direct 
the Governor to re-consider the question of punishment. The 
High Court has only to see whether the constitutional guaran-
tees have been violated; but it is not concerned with the penalty 
imposed, provided it is justified by the rules. The reasons 
which induce the punishing authority are not justiciable nor 
is the penalty open to review by the Court. If the order can 
be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour 
for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed it is not for 
the court to consider whether that ground alone would have 
weighed with the authority dismissing the public servant. 
CIVIL AYPELLATEjURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 213 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
February 17, 1959, of the Orissa High Court, Cut· 
tack in O. J.C. No. 216 of 1957. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. D. Menon, for the 
appellants. 
G. B. Pai, B. Parthasarthy, J. B. Dadachanji 
and 0. C. Mathur, for the respondent. 
1962. October 19. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH, J.--Bidyabhushan Mphapatra-herein-
after called 
'the respondent'-was a permanent 
1962 
State of OriHa 
v. 
BiJycjhush1n 
M4h•P«tr_1 
S/uJA, J. 
1962 
SttJte •f Oriss5 
v. 
Bidyabhushan 
Mohapatra 
Sh•h, J. 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
non-gazetted employee of the State of Orissa in the Re-
gistration Department and was posted at the m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.