STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BIPIN BIHARI JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1036 of 2004 at the Instance of the State authorities. Opposite Party No.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal. THIS case having a chequered carrier, it is necessary to refer the brief facts of the case before examining the legality of the impugned order.

(2.) OPPOSITE party no.1 joined Orissa Administrative Service in the year 1981. It is alleged that while working as B,.D.O. at Gunupur in the erstwhile district of Koraput, he committed several serious irregularities during 1986 and a disciplinary proceeding bearing No.10028 dated 29.7.87 was initiated against him for such irregularities. Initially the memorandum of charges contained five different charges, but later on it was increased to s even. The inquiry was conducted and report submitted on 23.04.1990. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and in consultation with O.P.S.C. issued the order of punishment of dismissal from service. OPPOSITE party no.1 challenged the order of punishment in O.A. No.1194 of 2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after examination of the inquiry report found that the witnesses were examined ex parte, documents were admitted without giving opportunity to opposite party no.1 and an ex parte enquiry had been conducted. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the order of punishment by its judgment dated 27.03.1995 and remitted the matter back for fresh inquiry from the stage of recording of evidence. In terms of the order of the Tribunal in the said original application, the State Government by order dated 20th October, 1995 directed the same Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as it stood on 30.05.1989. It was clarified in the said order that the Marshaling Officer will marshal the evidence during enquiry. After remand, the inquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 29.06.2001 and on receipt of the inquiry report, the first show cause notice along with the inquiry report was sent to opposite party no.1 for submitting his reply. The 2nd show cause notice was issued on 02.08.2002. Challenging the second show cause notice, opposite party no.1 again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1683 of 2002. The Tribunal disposed of the said original application on 21.4.2003 clarifying that as per Rule 15 (1) (i) (b) of the OCS (C.C.A) Rules, 1962 as amended in 2000, the disciplinary authority was required to furnish a statement of his findings with brief reasons of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Since the second show cause notice did not disclose the reasons of disagreement, the same was quashed and the disciplinary authority was directed to dispose of the proceeding after issuing fresh notice indicating the reasons for disagreement with the findings as well as the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, a second show cause notice was issued afresh and the opposite party no.1 submitted his reply to the same. On consideration of the reply, the disciplinary authority directed compulsory retirement of opposite party no.1 from service with immediate effect, recovery of Rs.21,500/-and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as such. Challenging the said order of the disciplinary authority, the present original application was filed before the Tribunal.