STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DEEPTI RANJAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Writ Petition, filed at the instance of the State and its functionaries, prayer has been made to quash the Order dtd. 19/2/2015 passed in O.A. No.1415 of 2011, at Annexure-4, whereby the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has directed the State-Petitioners to sanction normal annual increments of Opposite Party No.1 during the period of his suspension and accordingly revise his pay under Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 (for short "ORSP Rules, 2008") and pay all his differential arrears within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Opposite Party No.1, while working as Junior Clerk in the Sub-Treasury, Bisoi, in the District of Mayurbhanj, a Vigilance Case was initiated against him for taking illegal gratification as he was caught red handed. On the basis of communication made by the Vigilance Department, he was placed under suspension. As a consequence thereof, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to cause inquiry into the charges levelled against him on the allegation of misconduct and harassment to the pensioners for extracting illegal gratification. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, vide Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Order No.9530 dtd. 23/6/2003, as required under Rule-15(4) of OCS (C.C.A) Rules, 1962. After conducting inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report before the Disciplinary Authority. On receipt of the Enquiry Report, Opposite Party No.1 was asked to furnish his reply to show cause, vide Directorate Letter No. 11221 dtd. 7/7/2011 and Letter No. 14924 dtd. 30/8/2011, as required under Rule-15(10)1(a) and Rule-15(10)1(b) of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. As the reply submitted by Opposite Party No.1 was not convincing and satisfactory, ultimately he was found guilty of the charges. As a consequence thereof, the proceeding was finalized on awarding punishment, as required under Rule-13 of OCS (CCA) Rules,1962, which reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Petitioners vehemently contended that Opposite Party No.1 is not entitled to the incremental benefits because of the fact that the period of which the person is on duty in a post on a time scale counts for increment in that time scale.