DINABANDHU SARANGI Vs. ORISSA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Sectional Supervisor in the Orissa Forest Development Corporation, in short, 'Corporation' and was posted at Choudwar Saw Mill. On the basis of certain allegations, he was put under suspension with effect from 4.6.1980. After suspending him, no action was taken by the authorities of the Corporation till 23.11.1983, when charge-sheet was framed and served upon the petitioner alleging commission of misconduct. After receiving charge-sheet, the petitioner approached the authorities and requested them to recall the suspension order and permit him to discharge his duties. Considering the said application, the suspension order was recalled and the petitioner was permitted to join at Rairakhol. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show cause denying all the allegations levelled against him. Even after receipt of the show cause, no action was taken for initiation of departmental proceeding nor any information was given to the petitioner till 8.8.1997, when an enquiry officer was appointed. In the meanwhile, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had retired from service with effect from 28.2.1997. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite party-Corporation, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.8.1997 (Annexure-6) appointing an Enquiry Officer after he retired from service. It is submitted that as the process of enquiry has not commenced and as charges relate back to the year 1980. It is a fit case where the entire proceeding should be quashed.

(3.) In support of such submission, the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sukadev Behera v. Managing Director, OFDC, 2008 2 OrissaLR 612 and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC and Ors.,1999 AIR(SC) 184 and submitted that following the ratio of the said case, the entire proceeding may be quashed.