NARAYAN PADHI Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who was appointed as a peon in the year 1947 was promoted to the post of Treasury Sarkar on 7 -4 -1970. By the impugned order (Annexure -9) passed by the disciplinary authority after finding him guilty in a regular disciplinary proceeding, he has been reverted from the post of Treasury Sarkar to that of Peon, a fine of Rs. 400/ - has been imposed to be realised at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per month from his pay till the amount is fully cleared and the period of suspension has been ordered to be treated as suspension on punishment. The Petitioner challenged the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and also the punishment imposed on him, but after the close or the I argument, an affidavit was filed indicating that he would not challenge the punishment or reversion but would confine his challenge to the two other orders, namely imposition of Rs. 400/ - as fine and treating the period or suspension as suspension on punishment. There is no dispute that the post or Treasury Sarkar ill a post borne in Class -III whereas the post of a Peon is a post borne in Class -IV.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner's case, he was promoted to the post of Treasury Sarkar on 7.4.1970 and was posted at Chikiti Check -gate. On 19.11.1972, his son was involved in a bus accident and was injured and he wanted to see his son. As no other officer or peon was present at the check -gate on that day, he contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Berhampur, on telephone and sought for his permission to -leave the gate and -proceed to see his son, but the Commercial Tax Officer asked him not to leave the gate till he himself arrived at the spot. The Petitioner also wrote all these facts in a letter dated 20.11.1972 addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer. The local officer who was the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer became furious on this score and wanted to harass him. Shortly thereafter, on 3rd or May, 1973, the Petitioner was placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. Charges were drawn up against him and by letter dated 13th of July, 1973 (Annexure -3) he was called upon to explain the charges against him within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt or the charges. The Petitioner received another set or charges by letter dated 1st or October, 1973 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ganjam, annexed as Annexure -4. The Petitioner submitted his explanation as per Annexure -5 and the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Ganjam -I Circle, who had been appointed as the enquiring officer enquired into the charges and submitted his report on 17.4.1974 (Annexure -6) wherein he found the Petitioner guilty or the charges Nos. 3 and 4 and the Petitioner was exonerated or all other charges. Charge No. 3 is to the effect that Petitioner collected tax without proper authority and did not make over the amount for being accounted for in Government account even though he was categorically asked to do 80. Charge No. 4 is to the effect that Petitioner was guilty of accepting and retailing Government money in an irregular way to which he was not authorised or entitled. The disciplinary authority who was the Sales Tax Officer accepted the finding of the enquiring officer and directed the Petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted, the proposed penalty being reduction from the rank of Treasury Sarkar to that of a Peon, imposition of fine of Rs. 400/ - and the period of suspension to be treated as suspension on punishment. After receipt of the show cause from the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority then passed the impugned order on 29.5.1974 in Annexure -9. The Petitioner carried an appeal unsuccessfully to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Orissa, Cuttack, who rejected the appeal by his order dated 25 -7 -1978, annexed to the writ application as Annexure -11.

(3.) DR . Dash, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, then submits that the imposition of fine of Rs. 400/ - as penalty cannot be sustained in view of the proviso to Rule 13 of the C.C.A. Rules. Though fine is a punishment enumerated in Rule 13(i), yet under the proviso, it has been stated that the penalty of fine shall be imposed only on Class IV Government servants. Admittedly, the Petitioner was a Treasury Sarkar when he was proceeded against and was thus a Class III Government servant and, therefore, the punishment of fine inflicted upon him is invalid. Accordingly we set aside the sited order of punishment imposing a fine of Rs. 400/ -.