STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MANJULATA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner State of Orissa has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of this writ petition whereby and where under the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench Cuttack dtd.27.08.2013 in O.A. No.1110(C) of 2010 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has directed the State to reinstate the applicant with immediate effect on appropriate post and complete the departmental proceeding within one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the charge shall be deemed to have been quashed.

(2.) The brief fact of the case in narrow compass is that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the private opposite party vide memorandum of charge on 06.05.2010 which has been challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the memo of evidence attached to the memorandum of charge have not been supplied to the applicant and also the order of suspension be quashed. The Tribunal has passed order on 27.8.2013 revoking the order of suspension with a direction to reinstate her in service with a further direction to provide the relevant documents and to conclude the departmental proceeding within one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the charge shall be deemed to have been quashed.

(3.) The order passed by the Tribunal is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that on the one hand the Tribunal has directed to conclude the departmental proceeding failing which it will be deemed to have been quashed, while on the other hand the entire departmental proceeding has been stalled vide order passed on 23.05.2014 in O.A. No.1613(C) of 2014 which has been filed by the opposite party challenging the appointment of Enquiry Officer. It has been submitted that the departmental proceeding is not been concluded due to continuous litigation filed by the opposite party on the one pretext or the other and the Tribunal has passed an interim order in that original application, hence there is no fault on the part of the disciplinary authority as such the part of the order by which the departmental proceeding has been directed to be completed within one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the charge shall be deemed to have been quashed is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.