The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) No.1087 of 2017 Sukesh Chandra Satrusalya ..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate 1) State Of Odisha 2) OPSC, CTC -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 15.04.2024 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order of punishment so passed by the Department-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.18.05.2017 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order the following punishment was imposed against the Petitioner:- “1. Recovery of Rs.7,54,221/- from the DO. 2. Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.05.07.2012 under Annexure-1, Petitioner duly participated in the proceeding with filing of his written statement of defence. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner in his written statement of defence, the Enquiry Officer Page 1 of 5. while submitting the report vide Annexure-3 held the Petitioner guilty of the charges. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is reproduced hereunder:- “Therefore I conclude that the delinquent is responsible for the shortfall of 52ha. Of plantation at Chirikipada plantation site and resulted in misappropriation of Govt. revenue as follows:- (i) Cost of seedlings for 52 has. @ 1600/ha. @ 4.6 per seedling = 52 x 1600 x 4.6 = Rs.382720/- (ii) The vouchers for pitting, manuring etc. that were booked by the delinquent and as reported by the DFO for Rs. 309571/- (iii) The disallowed vouchers for Chirikipada site by the DFO which were later allowed by the RCCF basing on the 1st survey report, on an appeal petition by the delinquent, for Rs. 61930/- Therefore I conclude this charge stands as far as the shortfall in plantation for 52 ha of Chirikipada site is concerned.” 4.1. It is contended that basing on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner was issued with the 1st & 2nd show-cause as provided under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Petitioner though disputed the finding of the Enquiry Officer and took a stand that enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law, but the disciplinary authority without proper appreciation of the reply submitted by the Petitioner to the 1st & 2nd show-cause, held the
Decision
Petitioner guilty of the charges and disposed of the proceeding vide the impugned office order dtd.18.05.2017 under Annexure-7. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority never took into Page 2 of 5. consideration the stand taken by the Petitioner in his written statement of defence as well as the reply submitted to the 1st and 2nd show-cause, the order of punishment so imposed vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that while directing recovery of the entire amount of Rs. 7,54,221/-, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect should not have been passed. It is accordingly contended that this court may interfere with the order of punishment so far as it relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also fairly contended that because of the challenge made to the impugned order and consequential passing of the interim order by the Tribunal on 17.07.2017, Petitioner though has retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018, but he is not getting his final pension and retirement gratuity. It is also fairly contended that if this Court will interfere with the order of punishment so far as it relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, Petitioner has no objection with regard to recovery of the amount of Rs. 7,54,221/- from his final pension in monthly installment as deem fit and proper by this Court. It is also fairly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner will not claim commutation of his pension after such sanction of the final pension. 5. To the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate though made his submission supporting the impugned order, but contended that if the Petitioner is ready to pay the recoverable amount of Rs. 7,54,221/- in installment, this Court may interfere with the other part of the Page 3 of 5. punishment so far as it relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated with regard to the alleged misappropriation of the amount in question. Basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner has been saddled with the recovery of entire amount of Rs. 7,54,221/-. Since the Petitioner has been saddled with the entire recoverable amount, as per the considered view of this Court, the other punishment imposed directing stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is not incommensurate with the nature of charges framed against the Petitioner in the proceeding. 6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of punishment so far as it relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. While interfering with the same, this Court is inclined to quash the said order of punishment, while upholding the order of recovery so passed against the Petitioner. 6.2. While quashing the order so far as it relates to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, this Court considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner is ready to pay the recoverable amount of Rs. 7,54,221/- from his final pension in installment, this Court direct that the amount in question will be recovered from the monthly final pension of the Petitioner @ 1/3rd every month after its sanction. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass a fresh order by allowing the increment which was stopped basing on the impugned Page 4 of 5. order and after sanction of the final pension and gratuity, 1/3rd of the monthly pension be recovered towards the recoverable amount of Rs. 7,54,221/- till it is so recovered in full. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:40:48 Page 5 of 5.