STATE OF ODISHA Vs. UDAYANATH MAJHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by the State of Orissa, through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department, Bhubaneswar wherein the order dtd.1.10.15 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.147(C) of 2005 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has passed an order for quashing of the departmental proceeding in case it will not be concluded within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(2.) The fact of the case in short is that while the applicant was working as District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur-II, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, he was called upon to submit written statement of defence and accordingly he submitted his defence reply denying the charges. The authority thereafter has appointed an inquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, General Administration Department was appointed to enquire into the charges and the District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur-II was appointed as the presiding officer. On 19.1.2000 additional charge was framed against him. The applicant submitted his reply denying the additional charge. The applicant submitted a detailed explanation, denying the charges leveled against him. The inquiry officer has submitted its report regarding the first charge on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has proposed punishment to stop five increments with cumulative effect and treat the period of suspension as such.

(3.) The State of Odisha, through its functionaries, had appeared and filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Original Application wherein inter alia it has been stated that the applicant while working as District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur-II, committed gross irregularity by giving promotion to the post of headmaster in respect of 357 persons violating the principle of reservation and with an ulterior motive regularized the non-formal educator instructors and supervisors. After the charge was framed against the applicant, he was called upon to submit show cause, on receipt of show cause when it was not found to be satisfactory, the inquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry and to submit his report who has conducted a thorough enquiry allowing applicant to participate in the same, submitted enquiry report proving the guilt of the charges and thereafter he was called upon to submit his show cause, which was responded to by him, the disciplinary authority, after considering the defence reply, has passed the order of punishment considering the gravity of charge, hence the same is just and proper and no interference is called upon.