DEBENDRANATH PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an erstwhile Headmaster of a school run by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. He has filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying to quash the order dated 6th March, 2003 intimating him that on attaining the age of superannuation as on 8th March, 2003, he is going to retire from municipal service with effect from 31st March, 2003 as per the provisions of Rule 416 of the Orissa Municipal Rules. The petitioner also challenges the order of suspension dated 2nd July, 2002 suspending him from service. According to the petitioner, in course of suspension, he should not have been retired from service.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which are necessary for effectual adjudication of inter se controversies are as follows

(3.) According to the petitioner, the service rules applicable to the Government employees are also applicable to the employees of the Corporation. In consonance with the circular dated 1.12.1945 (Annexure-4) issued under O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962, an employee who is under suspension on charge of misconduct should not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement, but he should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charges is conducted and final order is passed thereon by the competent authorities. The petitioner having been put under suspension with effect from 2.7.2002, it is stated, the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in superannuating him without disposing of the disciplinary proceeding. Further, it is submitted that the order of suspension passed towards the fag end of the service without granting any opportunity was also unjustified. That apart, after suspending the petitioner without any justifiable reasons in the year 2002, neither charge was framed nor disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner till 2003 when he was superannuated. Such action, it is stated, is grossly irregular and illegally. In short,according to the petitioner,the authorities being enraged by the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court assailing the order of transfer, suspended him and without any rhyme or reason and without initiating any departmental proceeding or framing charges, issued the impugned order of superannuation, which is otherwise unjust and illegal and it is a fit case where the same should be quashed.