RAMA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ORISSA FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under prayer has been made to quash the orders dtd.05.06.2007 and 22.12.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority - opposite party no.1 and the Appellate Authority - opposite party no.4 as also for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to release all consequential benefits thereof.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Watcher at Raghunathpur Saw-Mill and Depot where he was assigned to watch and ward duty at main gate from 08.07.1999 to 13.8.1999, was subjected to a departmental proceeding for commission of irregularities of causing loss to the Corporation to a tune of Rs.18,514/- in connivance of the staff of Raghunathpur Depot, gross negligence in duty and misconduct. The petitioner has denied the allegation, as such he was subjected to face enquiry. The enquiry officer has found the charge proved and accordingly the disciplinary authority, while accepting the finding of the enquiry officer, has inflicted two punishments, i.e. (i) The period of suspension be treated as such; and (ii) He shall be brought to the minimum of present scale of pay with immediate and cumulative effect. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, has approached before the appellate authority, the appellate authority vide order dtd.22.12.2007, has reversed the order of punishment so far as it relates to second punishment by substituting it from bring to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect to that of censure, however, the first punishment, i.e. the suspension period be treated as such has been directed to be remain same.

(3.) The petitioner is before this court by challenging the first punishment on the ground that the appellate authority has taken into consideration of the finding of the enquiry officer wherein it has come that the petitioner who was a low paid watcher in the depot had acted upon the instructions of his higher authority and keeping this fact into consideration the second punishment of bringing to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect has been reversed to that of the punishment of censure, hence the order of punishment of treating the period of suspension as such ought to have been reviewed by the appellate authority on the ground that whatever irregularities he has committed, i.e. upon instruction of the higher authority, but by not doing so, the petitioner has been put to substantial financial loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said punishment is disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner, as such the same needs interference by this court. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 75.