RAHEMAN MAHAMMED Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order of punishment dtd. 8/12/2006 passed by the disciplinary authority under Annexure-10; the order dtd. 12/12/2008 passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-11; and the consequential order dtd. 28/9/2016 passed in O.A. No. 387 (C) of 2009 under Annexure-12, by which the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, while dismissing the Original Application, has affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority by holding that Rule-29 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 does not provide that such order is to be an elaborate and a speaking one.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while working as Junior Clerk in the office of the Sub-Treasury Officer, Athagarh, passed two GPF bills bearing Nos. 84 and 85 of 2003-04 of SDMO, Athagarh. Subsequently, he also passed and disbursed two other bills bearing No. 94 and 95/2003-04 of the said SDMO. Thereafter, the excess amount, which had been disbursed due to the above, were deposited vide challan No. 5 dtd. 3/7/2004. The SDMO, Athagarh, vide letter No. 803 dtd. 5/7/2004, intimated the Accountant General, Odisha regarding the excess drawal as well as deposit of the aforesaid amount. In spite of that, pending drawal of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Though the SDMO, Athagarh had admitted that he was at fault in submitting bills and the petitioner had no fault, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice relating to (i) negligence in duty; (ii) gross misconduct; and (iii) tampering of official record. The petitioner pointed out certain facts in his defence, such as, GPF bills are always passed by the Sub-Treasury Officer and the bills in question could not have been submitted without sanction order etc. and he refuted the charges of misconduct. He also denied the charges relating to tampering of official record.

(3.) Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Inquiry Officer in his report found that the petitioner should not be held guilty of the charges levelled against him for any procedural lapses, the disciplinary authority should not have inflicted on the petitioner the penalty that (i) the period of suspension is treated as such which will not be counted for qualifying service; and that (ii) one increment is withheld with cumulative effect. As against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal, but the appellate authority, without application of mind, affirmed the order of punishment by only stating that after careful consideration, the appeal petition filed by the petitioner is rejected as being devoid of merit. In such circumstance, the order so passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, as it is not supported by any reason. Although the petitioner took this stand before the tribunal, but, while considering the Original Application, the tribunal came to hold that as regards the appellate authority not passing any speaking order, Rule 29 does not provide that such order has to be an elaborate speaking order and no infraction of rules has been brought out. Thereby, it is contended that since the appellate authority has passed an order upholding the order of punishment, it must be supported by reasons. In absence of the same, the order so passed by the appellate authority cannot sustain. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the tribunal confirming the order passed by the appellate authority cannot also sustain.