ANITA KUMARI DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was working as a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) at Tarabha in the district of Kandhamal, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dtd. 12/10/2017 passed in O.A. No.1996 of 2015, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar finding no infirmity in the Order passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissed the Original Application filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner was working as a Lady Supervisor in Bataguda Sector of Baliguda Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) Project. While working as such, a Departmental Proceeding bearing D.P. No.03 of 2011 under Rule-15 of the Odisha Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as "OCS (CC and A Rules, 1962") was initiated against her by the Opposite Party No.3 vide Memorandum No.107 dtd. 15/1/2011. The articles of charges framed against the Petitioner were willful absence, disobedience of Order of higher Authority and gross negligence in duty. She was directed to submit her written statement of defence within 30 days from the date of receipt of memorandum. The Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on the fact that she did not join her new place of posting despite being relieved from the earlier post on transfer and that she remained absent from Government duty willfully disobeying the higher Authority. The Petitioner submitted written statement of defence on 16/2/2011 denying the allegation stating therein that the absence was due to her illness and in support of his contention, he submitted the Medical Certificate and also contended that she had already submitted leave application before the appropriate Authority. Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Kandhamal- Cum-Disciplinary Authority, did not accept such reply submitted by the Petitioner and Vide letter No.596 dtd. 21/3/2011, appointed Sub-Collector, Baliguda, as Inquiring Officer, in view of the provision contained under Rule 15(4) of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 to enquire into the allegations levelled against the Petitioner and directed to complete the inquiry within a period of three months. Simultaneously, the Opposite Party No.3, invoking the power conferred on him, also nominated CDPO, Baliguda, as Marshalling Officer vide the same letter to present the case in support of the charges before the Inquiry Officer, including conducting the inquiry on the charges framed against the Petitioner. The Inquiring Officer conducted the inquiry on the charges levelled against the Petitioner and without following the provisions of Rule 15(6) and also in violation of Rule 15(7) of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 submitted his Report on 18/7/2011. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 issued a show-cause notice on 23/8/2011 under Rule 15(9) of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 to the Petitioner instructing her to make representation, if any, against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In compliance to the same, the Petitioner submitted representation on 19/9/2011 to the Opposite Party No.3-Collector-Cum- Disciplinary Authority. But the same was not accepted and, as such, Opposite Party No.3-Disciplinary Authority, further issued 2ndShow-Cause Notice as to why punishment, as indicated, should not be imposed on her. Pursuant to such 2ndShow-Cause Notice, the Petitioner submitted her reply on 29/11/2011 highlighting therein all factual aspects. But the grounds taken in her representation could not satisfy Opposite Party No.3 and in turn, he passed an Order on 23/12/2013 imposing the following penalties:

(3.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.D. Routray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently contended that the Order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-9 dtd. 23/12/2013, pursuant to 2ndShow- Cause Notice under Annexure-7, dtd. 25/10/2011, cannot sustain in the eye of law, in view of the fact that while imposing penalty, the Authority has not passed a reasoned order. He further contended that the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal under Rule 22(1) of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 and in Paragraph-9 of the Appeal Memo specific pleadings were made that on acceptance of the defence submission though the Disciplinary Authority reduced the punishment to some extent, but the same was passed without assigning any reasons and, as such, he was biased in passing the Order impunged. It is further contended that even if such plea was taken before the Appellate Authority, but without considering the same in proper perspective and also without assigning any reasons, the Appellate Authority has passed the Order impugned on 2/1/2015. It is further contended that though specific stand was taken before the Tribunal in Paragraphs-6.8 and 6.9 of the Original Application, as mentioned above, but the Tribunal, without considering the same in proper perspective, passed the Order impugned confirming the Order of punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority, which itself is also without any application of mind. As such, the Tribunal, in Paragraph-7 has stated that from the pleadings of both the sides, the Tribunal find that there was no procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry under Rule-15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962. It is contended that such observation made by the Tribunal cannot sustain in the eye of law, as there is procedural irregularity with regard to award of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. Consequentially, he seeks for quashing of the Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority so also the Order passed by the Tribunal. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi) of this Court in the case of Narottam Pati v. North Eastern Supply Company and others, 2017 (Supp-I) OLR 479.