STATE OF ODISHA Vs. NIRAKAR BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the State of Odisha in the Department of Water Resources, Bhubaneswar, assailing the order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 675 (C) of 2012, wherein learned Tribunal relying upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Rajpal Singh, reported in 2010 (5) SCC 783, held that different punishments cannot be imposed on different delinquents charged in disciplinary proceedings held under Rule 17 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 (for short, the CCA Rules). Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the opposite party No. 1, namely, Nirakar Biswal, vide order No. 600A/WR (C) dated 10.09.2012 was quashed and the petitioners were directed to extend the benefits in favour of opposite party No. 1 within a period of four months from the dated of receipt of the said order.

(2.) Mr. M.S. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners-State submitted that the opposite party No. 1 while, working as Junior Engineer, M.I. Section, Harichandanpur under M.I. Division, Anandapur, faced a departmental enquiry along with Sri Ashok Kumar Behera, the then Executive Engineer in-charge, M.I. Division, Anandpur, Kashinath Rout, the then Assistant Engineer, M.I. Sub-Division, Harichandanpur and Dayanidhi Nayak, Junior Engineer, M.I. Section, Jangira and was placed under suspension with effect from 06.11.2009. Subsequently, charges were framed against the Delinquent Officers and a joint enquiry was conducted under Sec. 17 of the CCA Rules, 1962. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 30.10.2010 holding the opposite party no. 1 along with Sri Ashok Kumar Behera, the then Assistant Engineer, to be guilty of the charges and suggested punitive action against them under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Since, Kashinath Rout was superannuated by then, his case was recommended to be dealt with under the provisions of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. As Dayanidhi Nayak was appointed as Junior Engineer on contractual basis and was removed by then, it was held that his case could not be dealt with under the provisions of CCA and a criminal proceeding was recommended to be initiated against him.

(3.) During pendency of the enquiry, the opposite party No. 1 was reinstated in service vide order dated 24.06.2010 considering his representation dated 20.06.2010 pending finalisation of the proceeding. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, vide order dated 30.09.2013. Following due procedure of law, the opposite party No. 1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.09.2012. Assailing the same, the opposite party No. 1 had filed O.A. No. 675 (C) of 2012, wherein the impugned order under Annexure-4 was passed.