UNION OF INDIA Vs. MEGHANAD NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 17.4.2007 passed in O.A. No. 491 of 2006.

(2.) THE opposite party was working as a Senior Accountant in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A and E) of Orissa at Bhubaneswar. A case under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against him in the court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar on allegation of being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Simultaneously a Departmental Proceeding on allegation of acquisition of properties without permission was also initiated. Another Departmental Proceeding was also initiated on the allegation of subletting the Government quarter allotted in his favour to an outsider without permission of the competent authority. When the Departmental Proceeding initiated on the allegation of acquisition of properties without permission reached the final stage, the opposite party approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 97 of 1990 to stay the said proceeding on the ground that the charges in the criminal proceeding as well as in the said Departmental Proceeding being the same, the further proceeding in the Departmental enquiry should be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. In the said Original Application the Tribunal also directed the Department not to pass any final order in the Disciplinary Proceeding till disposal of the criminal trial pending in the court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. The criminal case initiated against the opposite party ended in conviction with imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the opposite party preferred Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1995 before this Court. By order dated 28.11.1995 in Misc. Case Nos. 391 and 392 of 1995, realization of fine and operation of the judgment of conviction was stayed by this Court. In 2001, when the Departmental Authority served a copy of the enquiry report drawn in the Disciplinary Proceeding asking the opposite party to furnish his written statement of defence, he again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 202 of 2001 on the ground that an appeal having been filed against the order of conviction and sentence, the Departmental Proceeding should not also proceed till disposal of the appeal. The said Original Application was disposed of with an observation that because of the interim order dated 28.11.1995 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, the hands of the Department have been bound down till disposal of the appeal or till the interim orders are modified. Thereafter an application was filed before this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal for vacating the interim order dated 28.11.1995. The interim order was vacated on the basis of such petition filed on behalf of the Department. After the interim order was vacated, based on the conviction of the opposite party by the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in the said criminal case, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the opposite party preferred an appeal. When the appeal was not disposed of within a period of three and half months, the opposite party again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 651 of 2004 praying for quashing the order of dismissal on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and proviso to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said Original Application was disposed of on 8.12.2005 with an observation that since the Departmental Appeal is pending, the Appellate Authority has the inherent power to set right the wrong committed by the Disciplinary Authority and if no opportunity was given to the opposite party to have his say in the matter before the impugned order was passed, the Appellate Authority can redress the said aspect of the matter by giving adequate opportunity to the opposite party at his level or by remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to follow the principle of natural justice. After the said Original Application was disposed of with the above direction, the Appellate Authority remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing fresh orders in terms of the observations made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.3.2006 imposed the punishment of removal from service and challenging the said order, the present Original Application was filed alleging non -compliance of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

(3.) THE Tribunal in the impugned order set aside the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass final orders only after giving the Applicant an opportunity to have his say. The Department assailing the said order of the Tribunal has preferred this writ petition.