SIBARAM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in the present O.A. has challenged the order of the Collector, Koraput dismissing him from service. He has also challenged the appellate order of the R.D.C. confirming the order of the Collector.

(2.) THE case of the applicant as revealed in his O.A. may be briefly stated as follows: The applicant was working as the Head Sevak in Pradhanipaut Sevashram under Kundra Block Office in the district of Koraput in May, 1989. All on a sudden he was placed under suspension by the Collector, Koraput vide his office order dtd. 5.5.1989 at Annexure -1. Along with the order of suspension a set of charges at Annexure -2 were also served on the applicant. The applicant was charged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 12.12.1987 to 16.12.1987. He was also charged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 21.1.1989 to 27.1.1989. The applicant submitted his written defence on 13.5.1989 at Annexure -2. The Sub -Collector, Jeypore was appointed as the Enquiring Officer. By his order dtd. 6.7.1989 at Annexure -4 the Enquiring Officer directed the applicant to appear before him on 19.7.1989 at 10 A.M. for inquiry. In obedience to such order the applicant attended the office of the Sub -Collector at the appointed time and date. But the Enquiring Officer, though present in his office, remained otherwise busy and did not hold any inquiry. While the proceeding was pending, the Collector, Koraput served another additional charge on the applicant by his order dtd 5.10.1989 at Annexure -5. In the said additional charge the applicant was charged that during the period of suspension his headquarters were fixed at Malkangiri. But the applicant neither stayed at Malkangiri nor reported before the Sub -Collector, Malkangiri. The applicant submitted his written defence to the additional charge in his letter dtd. 29.10.1989 at Annexure -6. The Sub -Collector, Jeypore, who had been appointed as Enquiring Officer, did not actually hold any inquiry and without giving the applicant reasonable chance of defending himself submitted an inquiry report dtd. 19.8.1989 at Annexure 7 -A holding the applicant guilty of the charges. On receipt of the inquiry report the Collector by his order dtd. 31.1.1990 at Annexure -7 dismissed the applicant from service. His period of suspension was also treated as such. The applicant preferred appeal to the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur vide Annexure 9 -A against the order of dismissal. Since no order was passed by the Appellate Authority the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 63 of 1991. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. in their order dtd. 7.12.1999 directing the R.D.C. to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months. In spite of that the R.D.C. did not dispose of the appeal and the applicant filed a contempt petition against the R.D.C. for disobedience of the order of the Tribunal. Finally, the RDC disposed of the appeal by his order dtd. 31.1.2003 at Annexure -12 holding that the appeal should have been preferred before the concerned Head of the Department and the applicant being an incumbent under the ST/SC Development Department he should have preferred the appeal to the Director ST/SC Development Department. Accordingly, the RDC refused to entertain the appeal and advised the appellant that if the latter so liked he could approach the Director, ST/SC Development Department against the punishment awarded on him.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel at length. We could have disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the Director, ST/SC Development Department to dispose of the appeal. But the matter has long been delayed. The applicant has in the meantime retired from Govt. service and a direction to the Director, ST/SC Development Department would cause further delay in disposal of the matter. Since the applicant is already 75 years old the O.A. shall be disposed of on merit without going through the technicalities.