LINGARAJ KHADANGA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure -10) passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dismissing O.A. No. 223 of 1999 filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of punishment passed against him in the departmental proceeding vide Annexure -8, which was challenged on the ground of non -compliance of Sub -rule (10)(ii) of Rule -15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 as well as violation of principle of natural justice.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while working as the S.D.O., Koraput, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide D.P. No. 2301 of 1986 for violation of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956, misuse and abuse of official powers for private gain, violation of Government rules and orders, passing illegal orders, delaying the report under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act with ulterior motive causing loss to the R.M.C., Dumuriput and negligence of duty. The petitioner filed his written statement of defence and the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was appointed to enquire into the above charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report suggesting to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. But the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Government of Orissa, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, imposed punishment of reversion to the rank next below and treated the period of suspension as such. Challenging the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1386 of 1991 on the ground that non -furnishing of copy of the enquiry report together with the final order of the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner before infliction of punishment is violative of the principle of natural justice. The said O.A. was disposed of on merit by order dated 08.06.1997 setting aside the order of punishment and remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority. In the said order, the petitioner was directed to submit his comments, if any, on the proposed punishment within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and after receipt of the additional reply, if any, from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority was directed to dispose of the proceeding within three months thereafter. On receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted interim comments basing upon the finding of the Inquiry Officer on 28.07.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to furnish his final comments, which he did on 24.12.1997. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.01.1999 imposed punishment of withholding of three consecutive increments with cumulative effect in the present scale and treating the period of suspension as such. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 223 of 1997 on the ground that he was not allowed to represent against the proposed punishment and that the reasons for disagreement from the find -ing of the Inquiry Officer were not communicated to him. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply filed before the Tribunal stated that the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1368 of 1991 has been complied with by asking the petitioner to submit his additional reply, if any. After considering the charges with reference to the additional reply of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a fresh punishment order was issued on 19.01.1999 indicating the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It was also stated in the reply that violation of Regulation 2 of 1956 had been made in Case No. 20/85, that the petitioner had misutilised his official power for private gain and failed to discharge his duty in terms of Rule 3 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and that there was no question of legal infirmity. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the O.A. vide the impugned order under Annexure -10 by holding that there is no material on record to show that the report of the Inquiry Officer suffers from infirmity or is perverse. It may be mentioned here that the Inquiry Officer had held the petitioner guilty of two charges, but had recommended to exonerate him for the agony and suffering undergone by him due to long suspension. When the disciplinary authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion, which receives support from the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charges. The Court or the Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as the appellate authority to appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

(3.) WE have gone through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, judgment passed in the earlier O.A., inquiry report and the rules governing the field. Sub -rule 10(ii) of Rule -15, non -compliance of which is alleged by the petitioner, reads as under: