KELU CHARAN SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2001 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 1469(C) of 1994 filed by the present petitioner. By the said order, while disposing of the O.A., the Tribunal has directed that if the review D.P.C. finds the petitioner suitable, he would be promoted and appropriate seniority would be assigned to him. But, as he has already retired from service with effect from 28.2.2001, he would be given notional promotion to the rank of Superintendent (Inspector -M) from the date of his reversion, i.e., 30.5.1997 till the date of his retirement, i.e., upto 28.2.2001. But, as during this period he has not worked in the promotional post, he would not get the differential back wages.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In that proceeding, he was found guilty and the disciplinary authority reduced his pay to the stage of Rs. 532/ - per month for a period of two years vide order dated 7.12.1982. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner having failed, he filed O.A. No. 963 of 1992 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. While the earlier proceeding was pending, the authority initiated another proceeding against the petitioner on the self -same charge. The petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 1612 of 1983 before this Court against initiation of second proceeding for the self -same charge, but the same was dismissed. In the second proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, in the appeal filed by him, it was directed to continue the proceeding from the stage of second show -cause. After filing of the second show -cause, a fresh order was passed on 3.5.1986 forfeiting one increment for a period of one year, which would carry the value of two Black Marks in his Service Book. The said order having been upheld in appeal, the petitioner filed another O.A., i.e., O.A. No. 962(C) of 1992. Both the proceedings drawn up against the petitioner and the orders of punishment were quashed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1.2.2000.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Tribunal felt that injustice has been done in case of the petitioner, it directed to reconsider his case. Therefore, denial of differential back wages was not proper. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman : (1991)IILLJ570SC . In the said decision, the Apex Court has held as under: