DHIREN KUMAR BARIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation as Registrar, Biju Patnaik State Police Academy, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, pursuant to the charge framed on 13/9/2005 vide Annexure-1 series, on the ground of inordinate delay in its completion.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that while the petitioner was working as Inspector, D.H.R.P. Cell, Cuttack, on 29/4/2004, his government quarter was searched on the strength of a search warrant by a team of officers in presence of official witnesses and the properties/documents found during search were seized. It is alleged that during the check period from 1999 to 29/4/2004 the petitioner had purchased certain properties, comprising of both movable and immovable, in his name and in the name of his family members without prior permission/intimation as required under Rule 21 of the Odisha Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 and, as such, he had not submitted any property statement, as required under the aforesaid rule. Thereby, he was called upon to show cause on 13/9/2005 by issuing charge, memo of evidence and copies of relevant documents directing to submit explanation by 7/10/2005 as to why disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated against him.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, having been retired on 30/4/2020, disciplinary proceeding so pending against him w.e.f. 13/9/2005 by framing charges, has become redundant, inasmuch as neither the said enquiry can be conducted anymore under the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 nor any punishment can be imposed on him. It is further contended that the proceeding so initiated did not involve any allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated or caused any loss to the State exchequer. The disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner only due to institution of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 dtd. 7/5/2004. It is further contended that the disciplinary proceeding is liable to be quashed for inordinate delay in its conclusion, inasmuch as not only more than 15 years have passed since its initiation but also it has not been proceeded ahead for almost eight years, since the petitioner submitted the list of defence witnesses, and thereby, the petitioner is grossly prejudiced. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments in Pratap Kishore Dash vs. High Court of Orissa and Ors., 2009 (Supp-II) OLR 377; Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and Ors., AIR 2013 SC 2098; Prabodh Chandra Paikray vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Ors., 2016 (II) ILR-CUT- 188; Kailash Chandra Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and Ors. 2019 (II) ILR-CUT-121; Sarat Chandra Das vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, 2013 (I) OLR 769; and Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1841.