The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OA) No.1580 of 2019 Binod Kumar Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
Order No ORDER 04.03.2024 9. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. at the proceeding beyond (i) To declare the action of the respondents in Annexure-2 continuing dtd.15.01.2010 is contemptuous, illegal and in violation to the order of Hon’ble Tribunal and all subsequent orders after 31.05.2017 passed on the said proceeding at Annexure-2 are deemed to be void and liable to be quashed. 31.05.2017 (ii) To direct the respondents to treat the entire period of suspension as duty and to grant all consequential service and financial benefit to the applicant within a stipulated time period. (iii) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential service and financial benefits which are denied to the applicant on account of the departmental proceeding as at Annexure-2, suspension order as at Annexure-1 and suspension order as at Annexure-5 within a stipulated time period. 4. It is contended that challenging the order of punishment so passed against the Petitioner, Petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No.1284 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dt.10.11.2016 while disposing the matter issued the following order. <In view of the above observation and analysis, the order of punishment dated 18.02.2015 under Annexure-8 is quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of supplying the copy of the documents relied upon by the prosecution and conclude the proceeding following all the procedures laid down under OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. IN case the departmental proceeding is not disposed of within the stipulated time, the said proceeding shall be deemed to have been dropped. This is however, subject to condition that the applicant shall cooperate with the disciplinary authority for expeditious disposal of the proceeding. It is further directed that the period from the date of dismissal till disposal of the disciplinary proceeding be treated as suspension. With the above observation/direction, the O.A is disposed of.= 4.1. It is contended that since the Tribunal vide the said order directed for disposal of the proceeding within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order, the same since was not concluded within the time stipulated, the proceeding is to be treated dropped. 4.2. It is contended that as found from the communications issued under Annexures-5,6 & 7 series, the proceeding is found to have been continuing in the year 2018 also. It is accordingly contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal was never assailed by the State, the proceeding should have been disposed of within the time stipulated therein or else it should have been treated as dropped. 4.3. In support of his submission, Mr. Rath, learned counsel relied on an order passed by this Court on 06.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 956 of 2018. This Court on a similar issue has held as follows : 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order passed under Annexure-7, no proceeding whatsoever was initiated by Opp. Party NO.1 within a period of six (6) months. Therefore, in view of the nature of order passed under Annexure-7, no proceeding since was initiated within a period of six (6) months from the date of order, the period of suspension Page 2 of 4 is required to be treated as duty with release of all consequential service and financial benefits. However, on the face of the order passed under Annexure-7 and without initiating any proceeding when the benefit in terms of the order was not extended, the present writ petition was filed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.06.2016 under Annexure-7 no proceeding was initiated by Opp. Party NO.1 within a period of six (6) months from the date of order. Petitioner as per the said order is eligible to get the benefit of all service and financial benefits for the period he remained under suspension. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to treat the period of suspension of the Petitioner from 01.06.2006 to 16.10.2007 as duty and release all consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.= 5. Even though counter affidavit has been filed by the State and Mr. Samal made his submission basing on the stand taken in the said counter affidavit, but he could not dispute the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding continuance of the proceeding beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of the order so passed in OA No.1284 of 2015. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that vide order dt.10.11.2014 in OA No.1284 of 2015, the Tribunal while quashing the order of punishment remitted the matter and with a direction to conclude the proceeding within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order or else the proceeding will be treated to have been dropped. 6. Since as found from the documents available at Annexujres-5 to 7 series, Petitioner was noticed to participate in the proceeding lastly on 23.03.2018, it is to be held that the proceeding has not been disposed of in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. Page 3 of 4 5.2. In view of such lacunae which is apparent on the face of the order, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dt.15.01.2010 under Annexure-2. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 11-Mar-2024 11:46:18 Page 4 of 4