MANORANJAN SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dtd. 26/9/2016 passed in O.A. No. 992 of 2011, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner both on merit as well as on limitation.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially working as an Assistant Driver under the Commandant, O.S.A.P. 3rd Battalion, Koraput. Subsequently, while working as Sepoy in O.S.A.P. 1st Battalion, Charbatia in 2000, he availed three days C.L. and two days Special C.L. from 15/2/2000 to 20/2/2000. But, thereafter, he did not join in duty, as he suffered from illness and undergone medical treatment at Government Hospital, Khurda. Even though he submitted a medical certificate to the authority, vide letter dtd. 22/5/2000, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the charges that he willfully and unauthorizedly remained absent and did not attend the medical board on being requisitioned by the C.D.M.O., Cuttack. Thereafter, the inquiring officer concluded the enquiry ex parte without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and recorded findings holding him guilty. Opposite party no.3, as the disciplinary authority, vide order dtd. 15/5/2001, inflicted penalty of two "black marks" with forfeiture of increment for a period of one year. As all types of leave were exhausted, it was directed that "the period of absence w.e.f. 15/2/2000 P.M. till the date and till the date of joining in future treated as extra-ordinary leave with loss of pay and break of service". Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his joining report before opposite party no.3 on 21/8/2001 and also intimated that he was suffering from Asthama and was under the treatment of Doctors at Khurda and after the treating doctors declared him fit, he submitted his joining report on 21/8/2001. 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D.G. and I.G. (SAP) on 26/11/2001. The appellate authority, without considering the prayer of the petitioner, passed order rejecting his appeal. Consequentially, though the petitioner filed revision before the D.G. and I.G.-opposite party no.1, the same was not responded to and, as such, he was informed that the said revision petition could not be traced out. Therefore, the petitioner filed another revision petition on 9/6/2010 and after filing of the second revision petition, he was informed by opposite party no.3 on 7/1/2011 that the earlier revision petition filed by him has been rejected by opposite party no.1, vide order dtd. 31/3/2003, and returned the later revision petition to the petitioner. It is stated that though the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner was confirmed by the D.G. and I.G. of Police, vide order dtd. 3/4/2003, but the same was not communicated to the petitioner, for which he had filed second revision petition. Thereby, both the appellate and revisional authorities have not passed the orders with due application of mind, for which the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that while passing the orders impugned, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have not applied their mind in proper perspective. He relied upon Rule-834 (a) of Orissa Police Manual, which deals with imposition of black marks, and contended that two black marks cannot be awarded in favour of the petitioner as because PMR-834 (a) prescribes that black marks may be awarded alone or in addition to other punishments enumerated in Rule-824 except dismissal or removal, to all officers of and below the rank of Inspector, and no more than one black mark shall be awarded for any one offence except when moral turpitude can reasonably be inferred. Thus, it is contended that for awarding two black marks, particularly when no moral turpitude can reasonably be inferred, the action taken by the authorities against the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and, as such, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law.