GOBINDA SAHOO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Field Assistant in Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. at Mathila Sub-Division under Divisional Manager, Jeypore Commercial Division, pursuant to order dated 07.07.2000, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation that, while he was Coupe in-charge of Saptadhara-Lot-II Jodiguda Pudu, Lot-I, Tulsi MSWC-XVI, Saptadhara Podu, Kharjodi Podu and Salvage in KV line, the Corporation sustained loss of Rs. 1,31,116.00 due to shortage of 400.0642 cum of timber. The enquiry officer, being appointed by the disciplinary authority, enquired into the matter and submitted report on 01.10.2001 in Annexure-5 that no case was made out against the petitioner and, as such, he was not liable to bear the loss. But the disciplinary authority, instead of accepting the report of the enquiry officer, issued notice dated 30.10.2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,31,116/- shall not be imposed on him. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.11.2001 denying his liability and contended that he should be exonerated from all charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, without considering the same in proper perspective, vide order dated 27.09.2007 in Annexure-1, held that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 62,821/-. By so holding, he directed that the amount of Rs. 62,821/-, being a pecuniary loss to the Corporation, be recovered from the petitioner in 66 instalments, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 960/- for 65 instalments and the last instalment being Rs. 421/-, starting from his salary bill with effect from October, 2007. Aggrieved by such order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal on 16.10.2007 before the appellate authority, who upheld the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, without assigning any reason, by the impugned order dated 03.10.2008 in Annexure-8, hence this application.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having been exonerated from all charges levelled against him, pursuant to a fact finding enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority should not have directed for recovery of Rs. 62,821/- in place of Rs. 1,31,116/-, that too without assigning any reason whatsoever as to why the amount has been reduced. It is further contended that the appellate authority, without appreciating the grounds set out in the appeal memo in proper perspective, has upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason, which requires interference by this Court.

(3.) It is worthwhile to mention here that Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned counsel has entered appearance for opposite party No. 1 and also filed counter affidavit on 04.11.2008. When the matter was listed on 14.07.2017, three weeks time was granted on the request made on behalf of Mr. Mukherjee, as he was ill. On the date of hearing (28.11.2017) also, when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Since it is an old case of the year 2008, after affording due opportunity to the opposite parties to participate in the proceeding, this Court proceeded with the hearing and disposed of the matter finally at the stage of admission, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1.