STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER passed by Orissa Administrative Tribunal (in short, the 'Tribunal') quashing the order of suspension in passed in respect of opposite party No. 2 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Originally a proceeding was initiated against opposite party No. 2 in which he has submitted his explanation. Subsequently another disciplinary proceeding was contemplated to be started and at that point of time order of suspension was passed. Challenging the order of suspension opposite party No. 2 filed Original Application No. 920 of 1998 which was taken up for admission on 18 -6 -1998. It was indicated in the order of the said date that the question of interim prayer for stay of operation of the order of suspension vide Annexure -14 to the Original Application shall be considered after service of notice on the Respondents. It was clearly indicated that the Respondents while making statement in the reply shall indicate the circumstances under which the headquarters of the applicant had been fixed at Koraput before his joining at Koraput. The matter was listed on 2 -7 -1998, and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents wanted two weeks' time to file the really. The matter was directed to be listed in the last week of July, 1998. The matter was taken up on 31 -7 -1998 and finally on 4 -9 -1998 the impugned order Vide Annexure -I to the writ application was passed.

(3.) CERTAIN observations of the Tribunal have been assailed by the Respondents on the ground that they are contradictory to the settled position in law. The Tribunal has observed that when admittedly the applicant was proceeded against for a high degree of negligence, the Respondents could have placed him under suspension in the said proceeding. But having not chosen to do so, the subsequent order placing him under suspension without adequate justification is not tenable. The Tribunal was considering the question whether there was any necessity for placing the delinquent officer under suspension. Even if in an earlier proceeding the delinquent officer has not been placed under suspension, he can nevertheless be placed under suspension in the subsequent proceeding.