BIJAYANANDA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor under the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the OSRTC') has filed this application seeking to quash his order of compulsory retirement dated 06.01.2001 vide Annexure- 7 and consequential order in appeal by the appellate authority vide Annexure-21 dated 12.03.2004 confirming the order of compulsory retirement and further claims for grant of consequential relief with regard to arrear salary/duty pay as per the revised ORSP Rule 1998 and 2008 w.e.f. 07.01.2001 till 30.04.2013 for the post of Conductor and further claims to extend all retirement dues such as gratuity, leave salary, unpaid salary prior to 07.01.2001, Bonus with interest at the rate of nine percent.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner was selected by the competent authority of the OSRTC and was appointed as Substitute Conductor on 12.10.1976 in the scale of pay of Rs.240-5-255-EB-5-280-7-315/- sanctioned by the Government from time to time, pursuant to which he joined in the office of the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC, Cuttack. But subsequently, he was terminated from service on 23.8.1977. Against the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal and upon hearing the appeal, the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC, Cuttack allowed the same and reinstated the petitioner in service w.e.f. 28.12.1978. But all on a sudden, in November, 1997 without assigning any reason, his salary was stopped. Therefore, he filed an application before the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC, Cuttack vide letters dated 10.03.1998 and 30.06.1999, but the same were not considered by the authority. Due to revision of scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 1998, the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150/- has been revised to Rs.2560-4000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. But the said revised scale of pay has not been implemented in the case of OSRTC though the benefit has been extended to all State Government employees and other corporation employees of the State. The EPF amount which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner has not also been transmitted to the fund. The OSRTC decided to implement Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the Model Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the petitioner applied for the same, but no action has been taken on such application. Due to none payment of the dues, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 2044 of 2000 and this Court disposed of the said writ application on 1.11.2000 directing the authorities to take appropriate steps for payment of the arrear salary in the revised scale of pay till the date of voluntary retirement and also extend all the benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner. It is stated that the said order has not yet been complied with. It is further stated that though the petitioner was appointed as Conductor but he was attached to the office in Accounts section and subsequently transferred from accounts section to station office on 20.07.2000. It is stated that the petitioner was relieved from accounts section and joined in station office on 29.7.2000 and he was attached to emergency duty. The petitioner went for three days casual leave due to his illness and subsequently the same was extended. Thereafter, he was issued with an order of suspension dated 1.8.2000 which he received on 31.8.2000 along with charge sheet, to which, the petitioner submitted an explanation denying the allegations. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry on 25.10.2000 and the petitioner attended the same. The petitioner claimed for supply of inquiry report which has been provided to him on 27.12.2000, to which, he himself made representation and without considering such representation, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 6.1.2001 vide Annexure-7. Against the said order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner approached the appellate authority, but without considering the same in proper perspective, the appellate authority confirmed the order of compulsory retirement vide Annexure-21 dated 12.03.2004. Hence, this application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the order of suspension dated 1.8.2000 is illegal as the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and as such the petitioner has not been paid any subsistence allowance as per the rules of the OSRTC. The petitioner assailed the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that when this Court directed the authorities vide order dated 1.11.2000 to consider the application made by the petitioner under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and to pay the arrear and current salary, they should have complied with the same but instead of carrying out the order, the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without following due procedure of law inasmuch as the petitioner has not been supplied with any documents or list of witnesses or indicated that what is the allegation against him so as to give opportunity to rebut the same. Though the petitioner was served with copy of the inquiry report and he has filed representation thereto but the same has not been considered. It is stated that without following due procedure of law the order has been passed which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court should interfere with the same and quash the so called order of compulsory retirement passed by the OSRTC. It is further urged that even if such point has been raised before the appellate authority, but without application of mind, the appellate authority confirmed the order of compulsory retirement, therefore the same has also to be set aside.