PRANABANDHU PRADHAN Vs. COLLECTOR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a Grade II assistant in the Bureau of Statistics and -Economics. Before he came to this post he got his original appointment as a temporary lower division clerk in the Collector ate on 18 -6 -1955. Thereafter he got his promotion in the Collectorate and came to be appointed as Head Clerk in the Sadar Tahsil Office, Cuttack, on 1 -8 -1964. On his own application he was recruited as Grade II assistant under the State Transport Authority. When he got this new appointment he was relieved from the post of Head Clerk from the Tahsil Office on 27 -9 -1965. He joined his new appointment on 28 -9 -1965 and was subsequently transferred to the Directorate of Bureau of Statistics and Economics. He became the Head Clerk -cum -Accountant in the District Statistical Office on 1 -7 -1967. Ultimately he rose to the post of Grade II assistant in the Bureau of Statistics and Economics and was confirmed against that post with effect from 10 -9 -1967. This post against which he was confirmed had also been declared to be a permanent post.

(2.) SUDDENLY a set of charges was served on him (Annexure -3) on 21 -11 -1974 by the Collector of Cuttack alleging some delinquency on his part while he was serving in the Sadar Tahasil Office, Cuttack. He was asked to submit his explanation and to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. A copy of this charge was also sent to opposite party No. 2 who was appointed as the enquiring officer and he was directed to submit his enquiry report as early as possible. The Petitioner wants to quash this Annexure -3 on the ground that after his absorption in the department of Bureau of Statistics and Economics he lost his lien on his old post of Head Clerk in the Sadar Tahsil Office which stood automatically terminated after his confirmation in his new permanent post. For this position he relies upon Rule 69(b) of the Orissa Service Code which provides that a Government servant's lien on a post shall stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Central Government or the State Government or another Government) outside the cadre, on which he is borne. Though he was originally borne in the cadre of the Head Clerk in the Sadar Tahsil Office, and after his appointment in the new department his lien continued on his parent post, that lien terminated by reason of this rule on 22 -12 -1973 when he was confirmed against his post of Grade II assistant. On passing of the order of confirmation dated 22 -12 -1973 the Petitioner acquired a fresh lien on his new post of Grade II assistant either with effect from 10 -9 -1967 or 22 -12 -1973. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to decide as to which of those dates would be the date when he should be deemed to have acquired lien on his new post. At any rate, by 21 -11 -1974 when Annexure -3 was issued, the Petitioner's lien on his old post of Head Clerk in the Sadar Tahsil Office was terminated. The Collector, therefore, could not be considered to be the disciplinary authority within the meaning of its definition in Rule 2(d) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings in regard to any delinquency he might have committed during the time when he was serving under him in his old post. It is also conceded in para 5 of the counter of the State that the Collector, opposite party No. I, acted as the disciplinary authority of the Petitioner in issuing annexure -3 under the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. This contention was on the hypothesis that his lien on the old post of Head Clerk in the Sardar Tahsil Office continued. But as we have indicated above that Rule 69(b) of the Orissa Service Code is quite clear that the Petitioner lost his lien on his old post and acquired a fresh lien on the new post in Grade II assistant in the Directorate of Bureau of Statistics and Economics long before 21 -11 -1974, opposite party No. 1 had, therefore, no authority to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner. Such a proceeding was apparently misconceived. Accordingly, Annexure -3 is quashed.