MANORANJAN PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a directly recruited as Forest Ranger being appointed as such on 7/1/1987 and was working as Range Officer, Tarava KL Range under the administrative control of the DFO, Bolangir KL Division. While working as such, certain charges were framed against the petitioner by letter dtd. 8/3/1994 by the opposite party no. 2 and he was called upon to submit his explanation. The charges related to misappropriation of welfare fund amounting to Rs.37,198.00, manipulation of public money by keeping huge CB more than Rs.2.00 lakhs for personal benefit, serious financial irregularities by incurring unauthorized expenditure and disobedience of orders. The petitioner submitted a representation for supply of copies of certain documents to enable him to submit his effective explanation but the same were not supplied. He was also not permitted to inspect the documents or to take extracts thereof. As such, he submitted his explanation on 22/7/1996 denying the charges framed against him. His explanation being found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted in which he participated. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of the petitioner and submitted his enquiry report on 21/7/2002 to the opposite party no. 1 holding that the charges had been established and recommended punishment of recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner along with stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect. Despite submission of enquiry report, the disciplinary proceeding was not finalized and after lapse of about 12 years, the opposite party no. 2, vide letter dtd. 6/6/2013 issued the first show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply within 10 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5/7/2013. Since no action was taken in the matter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31/3/2014 requesting to finalize the proceeding at an early date. While the matter should thus, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3507(C) of 2014 with prayer to quash the charge and the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 8/3/1994. During pendency of the said O.A., the opposite party no. 1, as per his office order dtd. 26/5/2015, finalized the disciplinary proceeding inflicting penalty of recovery of Rs.2,05,329.90 and withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect. Since the disciplinary proceeding was finalized after about 21 years of its initiation, the petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal again by filing O.A. No. 2281 (C) of 2015, which has since been transferred to this Court and registered as the instant writ petition. The petitioner originally claimed the following relief:

(2.) During pendency of the O.A./writ petition, citing several developments the petitioner amended the writ application to incorporate all such facts. It was brought on record that during pendency of the writ application the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Promotion Adalat as he had been deprived of promotion to the post of ACF and after receipt of the same, the opposite party no. 1 by letter dtd. 21/5/2020 intimated the opposite party no. 3 to inform regarding the completion of the punishment period of the petitioner and the status of recovery of the amount imposed upon him on finalization of the D.P. Pursuant to such letter, the opposite party no. 3 vide letter dtd. 6/8/2020 intimated the Deputy Director of Nandankanan Zoological Park, Bhubaneswar with request to recover the amount imposed by way of punishment in the D.P. as per order dtd. 26/5/2015. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner claims to have been compelled to deposit the recovery amount of Rs.2,05,329.00 on 18/8/2020. It is stated that the said deposit was made under compulsion as it was given out to the petitioner that unless he deposits the amount no promotion would be given to him. Thus incorporating such facts the petitioner has also amended relief sought for in the writ application, which now reads as under:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It has been basically contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not availed the appropriate forum by filing appeal against the order of finalization of the disciplinary proceeding as per Rule-24 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. It is further stated that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case at every stage of the enquiry and that the charges levelled against him have been proved and accordingly, he was found guilty. It is further stated that on 29/2/2020 the petitioner appeared before the Promotion Adalat putting forth his grievance for promotion to the rank of ACF and agreed to deposit the sum of Rs.2,05,329.90 imposed as punishment vide order dtd. 26/5/2015 (Annexure-7) as per his representation dtd. 19/8/2020. Accepting the same, the petitioner was given promotion to the rank of ACF vide office order dtd. 28/9/2026. The petitioner has on his own volition accepted the punishment and therefore, the principle of acquiescence and waiver applies and he cannot challenge the same at this stage. On merits, it is stated that the petitioner had never submitted any representation for supply of documents and he has also not mentioned about non-supply of documents in his written statement of defence. The first show cause notice along with a copy of enquiry report was issued to the petitioner vide memo dtd. 31/7/2007. The enquiry report was once again sent to him vide memo dtd. 6/6/2013. The petitioner submitted his representation only on 4/7/2013. Therefore, the delay caused in finalization of the departmental proceeding is entirely attributable to the petitioner himself. Since all the charges leveled against him were duly proved in the enquiry in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself and further since he has acquiesced to the order of punishment imposed on him, he is estopped from challenging the order of punishment subsequently.