10.12.2012 Views

Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

860<br />

2. At the very outset a question was raised as to whether the present application can be entertained<br />

by this Tribunal violating the provision of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In<br />

Section 20 the hearing is “Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted”. Then<br />

Section 20(1) indicates that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied<br />

that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to<br />

redressal of grievances.<br />

3. Admittedly the applicant is a State Government employee Class-II. The disciplinary proceeding<br />

started against him was conducted in terms of the provisions of the Orissa Civil <strong>Service</strong>s (Classification,<br />

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. Part VI includes the provisions of appeals and in Rule 21 it is<br />

clarified that no appeal shall lie against any order made by the Governor. But Rule 22(2) clarified that<br />

a member of an Orissa Civil <strong>Service</strong>, Class I, or an Orissa Civil <strong>Service</strong>, Class-II, against whom an<br />

order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 13 is made by an authority other than the Governor<br />

may appeal against such order to the Governor. Mr. Sahoo appearing on behalf of the applicant<br />

contended that the order in Annexure-10 is to be treated as an order passed by the Governor inasmuch<br />

as there is an endorsement that it was passed “by order of the Governor”. So be concluded that there<br />

was no remedy available to the present applicant for filling any appeal within the meaning of Rule 21<br />

hereinabove mentioned. So the entire question centres round the point as to whether such an order<br />

issued by any authority with the endorsement “by order of the Governor” is to be treated as an order<br />

of Governor or otherwise.<br />

Orissa PSC<br />

4. Chapter II Part IV of the Constitution of India deals with the Executive. Under Article 154<br />

the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and it is clarified that such power is<br />

to be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the<br />

Constitution. In the same Chapter conduct of Government business is indicated from Article 166<br />

onwards. It is clarified by Article 166(1) that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be<br />

expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. In the same Article a provision is also made that<br />

the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government<br />

of the State and for allocation of the business. Actually on the basis of such power such allocation of<br />

business among the executives has been made and officers of different category are vested with the<br />

power of signing orders with the endorsement “By the order of the Governor”. So looking at the<br />

order with such an endorsement cannot be construed to be an application of mind by the Governor<br />

himself or to be construed as an order passed by the Governor. In fact, the passing of any order, as

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!