SUDARSAN ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Revenue Supervisor has challenged in this writ petition the punishment inflicted on him in a departmental proceeding. On the date the punishment was inflicted upon, he had been reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Tahsil Office at Jagatsinghpur. The past service record of the petitioner is not necessary for adjudicating the dispute in the present petition and suffice it to say that the petitioner joined as Kanungo in Grow More Food Scheme of 19.3.1945 and after getting some promotions had been promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor on 1. 9. 1152. He was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 23.6.1964, and while working as such at Jagatsinghpur, he received a letter that some money was outstanding against him which he had collected while he was discharging the function of Chakla Kanungo. By Collector's order dated 19.5.1966, Annexure -2 to the writ petition, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge of misappropriation of Government money. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but as in April, 1967, a criminal case was instituted under Section 409, I.P.C., the departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance. The petitioner thereafter was convicted by the 'Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara, under Section 409, I.P.C., by judgment dated 16.3.1970. Thereafter on 10.7.1970, the petitioner was dismissed from Government service purporting to be under Rule 18 (1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (for short referred to as the 'Rules'). This order of dismissal has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition. This order was served on the petitioner on 24.7.1970. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and the sentence passed by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, by judgment dated 20.12.1970 in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1970 (Annexure -5 ) set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate. The Collector, Cuttack, thereafter withdrew the order of dismissal passed on 10.7.1970, but simultaneously also ordered that the petitioner should continue under suspension until further orders. This order of the Collector has been annexed as Annexure -8 to the writ petition. The departmental proceeding which had been kept in abeyance was further continued and in addition to the charges already framed, an additional charge of gross negligence of duty was also framed and enquired into the said departmental proceeding. The enquiring officer submitted his report (Annexure -9) wherein he found that the petitioner was guilty of serious dereliction of duty assigned to him. He also found the petitioner guilty of the charge of temporary misappropriation of Government dues, but since the amount in question had been deposited, he had suggested that a lenient view should be taken and the petitioner should be reinstated in service and further suggested that the period of suspension should be treated as such. The disciplinary authority, however, did not agree with the suggestion of the enquiring officer regarding the quantum of punishment and on the findings of the enquiring officer, issued a second show -cause notice as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted upon the petitioner. On receiving the reply, the disciplinary authority has inflicted two punishments, namely, the petitioner was discharged from Government service and the period of suspension was treated as such. This order dated 2.9.1976 has been annexed as Annexure -10 to the writ application. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, who, by his order dated 14.12.1977 (Annexure -11) modified the punishment to the effect that the petitioner be compulsorily retired from the date of the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner preferred a review petition to the Government and the State Government ultimately by order dated 21.7.1979 (Annexure -12) confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and directed that the period from 24.7.1970 to 1.7.1972 be treated as on duty. This order of the Government is being challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) MR . P.K. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly raises three contentions -

(3.) SO far as treating the period of suspension from 24.5.1966 to 24.7.1970 is concerned, he relies on Rule 12(6) of the Rules which authorises the disciplinary authority to indicate while passing the final order as to how the period of suspension would be treated. He has also submitted that the order of compulsory retirement has not been given any retrospective effect and the disciplinary authority had discharged the petitioner from service and that order of discharge was merely modified to one of compulsory retirement and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement has been given any retrospective effect.