SAILENDU KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the I.A. seeking the following relief:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into service as Forest Ranger on 6/2/1986 in Karanjia Division. He was posted as Range Officer at Hadagarh Range of Keonjhar Wildlife Division w.e.f. 8/6/2005. While working as such, a departmental Proceeding was drawn against him by the office of the Principal, CCF Wildlife, Keonjhar on the allegation that he had given false deposition in C.S. No.16/2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur. A Memorandum was issued on 13/1/2011 proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 containing the substance of imputation of misconduct and article of charges and he was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 30 days. The petitioner, vide letters dtd. 5/2/2011, 15/2/2011 and 1/3/2011, addressed to the opposite party no.1 and letters dtd. 4/3/2011, 18/4/2011 and 15/7/2011 addressed to opposite party no.3, requested for supply of documents. The petitioner also met the Additional Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Odisha Bhubaneswar in the Grievance Cell on 21/1/2012 objecting to holding of enquiry without supplying the relevant documents. However ignoring the objection of the petitioner, the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division was appointed as Enquiring Officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 7/12/2013 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and proposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and censure. It is stated that the petitioner had been submitting several representations to the Enquiring Officer for supply of documents and objected to recording of his statement from the very first date of the enquiry. The Enquiring Officer, vide letter dtd. 21/2/2012 also asked the Marshalling Officer to supply the documents. On 1/2/2013, the DFO, Anandapur intimated the Enquiring Officer that the available information had already been supplied to the applicant, but the same according to the petitioner was not correct, as informed by him to the Enquiring Officer on 6/2/2013. The petitioner subsequently submitted that in the absence of the relevant documents he was unable to submit his written statement of defence but ignoring such request the Enquiring Officer proceeded with the enquiry and concluded it. On 30/7/2014, the opposite party no.1 issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to submit his representation on the penalty proposed by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority having disagreed with the punishment proposed by the Enquiring Officer proposed to inflict major punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and withholding promotion for next three years.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the opposite party no.1 admitting the matters of record but disputing the averments relating to non-supply of documents to the petitioner. It is stated that all the documents have been supplied to the petitioner but he did not submit his written statement. The imposition of major punishment is sought to be justified on the ground that mistakes committed by the petitioner are grievous in nature and due to his fallible misconduct and as the punishment proposed to be inflicted by the Enquiring Officer was too lenient. It is stated that the petitioner gave a different statement than the written statement filed in the Civil Suit, for which the judgment in the case was passed against the Government by holding that mining operation is not within the area of Hadagarh Sanctuary. Further, petitioner submitted some maps prepared by him, which are not approved maps, nor obtained prior permission of the authority before submitting the same in the Civil Court.