✦ High Court of India

The High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.38292 of 2021 & WPC(OAC) No.266 of 2018 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Padmanava Sethy …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :M/s. K.K. Swain, S.C.D. Dash, Advocates For Opp. Parties :M/s. M.K.Balabantaray, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 06.09.2024 and Date of Judgment:23.09.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are corelated to each other, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. // 2 // 3. While W.P(C )No.38292 of 2021 has been filed inter alia challenging the order of dismissal passed by Opp. Party No.4 vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020, communicated vide letter dt.20.06.2020 under Annexure-12, further confirmed in Appeal vide Order dt.06.11.2021 of Opp. Party No.2; under Annexure-16, W.P.C(OAC) No.266 of 2018 has been filed challenging order dt.05.12.2007, so passed by Opp. Party No.2. 4. It is contended that Petitioner vide order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexuxre-12 was removed from Government service w.e.f 18.08.2009 relying on the provision contained under Rule-72 (2) of the Orissa Service Code of Opp. Party No.4. Petitioner challenging the order of removal, when preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. Party No.2, vide Order dt.06.11.2021 under Annexure-16, Opp. Party No.2 while rejecting the same, confirmed the order of removal, so passed against the Petitioner vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure-12. 4.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing as a Sikshya Karmi w.e.f 22.08.1989, he was regularized as a Primary School Teacher w.e.f 25.05.1992.

Legal Reasoning

It is contended that while so continuing as a Level-V Asst. Teacher in the Elementary Cadre, Petitioner vide Office Order dt.02.08.2023 under Annexure-1 was promoted to Level-IV Headmaster. Page 2 of 22 // 3 // 4.2. It is contended that while so continuing as a Level-IV Headmaster, in terms of Order dt.02.08.2003 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was transferred to Ullibasa Primary School vide Order dt.15.06.2009 of the then Block Development Officer, Anandapur and was relieved vide Order dt.17.08.2009. Petitioner challenging the order of transfer, approached the Tribunal in OA No.1969(C ) of 2009. The Tribunal vide Order dt.31.08.2009, while disposing the matter, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. But Opp. Party No.2 vide Order dt.09.10.2009 while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, directed him to join in his place of transfer. But, Subsequently vide Office Order dt.27.05.2010 under Annexure-3, the then District Inspector of Schools, Anandapur deployed the Petitioner to work as C.R.C.C in Taratara Centre under Sarba Sikshya Avijan with immediate effect. Petitioner in terms of the order issued under Annexure-3, joined as C.R.C.C on 01.07.2010, so reflected under Annexure-4. 4.3. However, order dt.27.05.2010 when was kept in abeyance vide Office Order dt.04.06.2010 and Petitioner was directed to handover the charge of C.R.C.C to his predecessor, challenging order dt.04.06.2010, Petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.3341 (C ) of 2010. The Tribunal vide Order dt.28.10.2010 though directed for payment of the duty pay as due and Page 3 of 22 // 4 // admissible, but the same was never released. In the meantime, Petitioner also filed OA No.3032 (C )of 2011 with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to release the salary of the Petitioner, taking into account his date of joining as C.R.C.C on 01.07.2010. The Tribunal vide Order dt.16.12.2014, as an interim measure, directed that if the Petitioner is currently discharging his duty, he may be paid his current salary, as due and admissible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 4.4. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, the

Decision

Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.3341(C) of 2010 and 3032(C ) of 2011 vide a common order dt.27.01.2017. Observation and direction of the Tribunal so contained in para-7 of the order reads as follows: “7. Considering the rival contention, it may be noted that the applicant has stated that he approached the Tribunal in O.A. NO.888(C )/2009 and O.A. NO.3341(C )/2010, yet he has not whispered a word that he had moved the Tribunal in O.A. No.1969(C )/2009, where he challenged the order of transfer from Badadanda Primary School to at Ullibass (Badasahi) New Primary School and the Director, the Tribunal directed Elementary Education to consider the representation fo the applicant and compliance with the said order of the Tribunal, the Director vide order 09.10.2010 rejected the representation of the applicant. It appears that though the applicant was relieved from the said school on 17.08.2009, yet he has never joined in the new place of posting. Though the applicant claimed that he be on leave from 10.08.2009 to 30.06.2010, yet no document or material been produced showing that he applied for leave in time, which ws sanctioned. Therefore the action of the respondent/authorities treating the said Page 4 of 22 // 5 // period as unauthorized absence and initiating disciplinary proceeding cannot be faulted. The applicant in one hand claimed that he was on leave due to illness, for which he could not join in the School, to which he would transferred; on the other hand he approached the Tribunal challenging the order of transfer. This shows the seriousness of his illness which prevented him from joining in the new place of posting. Be that as it may, when administrative action has been taken against the applicant by initiating a disciplinary proceeding for unauthorized absence, there is no scope to direct regularization till disposal of the disciplinary proceeding. for Accordingly, from regularization of 10.08.2009 to 30.06.2010 as made in O.A. No.3341(C )/2010 is not entertainable. the applicant the period the grievance of the service for the So far as grievance in O.A. No.3032 (C )/2011, is letter concerned, where he has challenged dtd.30.12.2010, it may be noted that the order deplying him as CRCC have been kept in abeyance vide order dt.04.06.2010. The applicant has stated that the said order was never served on him but from the pleadings it appears that the applicant has refused to receive the said order from the Sub Inspector of Schools and the said order which was sent by registered post could not be served due to his long absence. Since the office orders have been communicated following due procedure, the applicant’s plea that the order was not served on him cannot be accepted. As discussed above, when the order of deployment as CRCC has been kept in abeyance vide order dtd.04.06.2010 and the said orders have not been challenged and is force; there is no illegality in issuing the impugned order keeping the appellant away from the post of CRCC. The letter dtd.30.12.2010 is consequential ad in compliance with the order dtd.04.06.2010 and hence no illegality has been committed in issuing the letter dtd.30.12.2010 and the grievance of the applicant is not entertainable.” 4.5. It is contended that challenging the common order passed by the Tribunal on 27.01.2017, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) 6727 of 2017. This Court vide order dt.14.07.2017 disposed of the Writ Page 5 of 22 // 6 // Petition inter alia with the following direction so contained in Para-5. “5. In the present writ petition opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and annexed some further documents which are not part of the record in the original applicant. As both the parties raised disputed questions of facts which are beyond the records, we are not inclined to go into all those controversy. Therefore, it is deem just and proper to direct the Director, Elementary Education, Bhubaneswar to enquire into matter. Accordingly, we dispose of the work petition with a direction to Director, Elementary Education, Bhubaneswar to enquire into the matter and given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner regarding his grievance the administrative decision taken by the authority. For convenience, the petitioner shall appear before him on 27th July, 2017 and produce all the relevant documents. On his appearance the Director shall fix a date of hearing call for the records from the concerned authorities and take consequential steps in accordance with the law. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months.” from 2009 onwards as well as 4.6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.07.2017 in W.P.(C ) No.6727 of 2017, Opp. Party No.2 when passed an order on dt. 05.12.2017 under Annexure-5 inter alia holding therein that Petitioner has remained on unauthorized absent from his duty w.e.f 26.10.2009 for more than 5 years violating Rule 72(2) of the Orissa Service Code and disciplinary Proceeding be initiated against the Petitioner by D.E.O, Keonjhar. Opp. Party No.2 also held that joining of the Petitioner as C.R.C.C is illegal as the Petitioner without joining in his parent post at Ullibasa Page 6 of 22 // 7 // Primary School had joined there. Opp. Party No.2 also held that since the Petitioner has remained on unauthorized absence, he is not eligible for release of the salary, unless Petitioner joined in his post at Ullibasa Primary School, after approval of the Government. 4.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that challenging order dt.05.12.2017 so Passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.266(C ) of 2018. But the facts remain that in terms of order dt.05.12.2017, Petitioner submitted his joining before Opp. Party No.4 vide letter dt.26.12.2017 under Annexure-6. However, vide letter dt.05.01.2018 under Annexure-7, Opp. Party No.4 intimated that joining report of the Petitioner cannot be accepted unless specific instruction is provided by the Department. 4.8. It is further contended that in terms of the order passed by Opp. Party No.2 vide Office Order dt.05.12.2017 under Annexure-5 and during pendency of the matter before the Tribunal in O.A. No.266 (C ) of 2018, Opp. Party No.4 vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019 proposed to take action against the Petitioner under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and submitted the Memorandum along with Office Order dt.04.04.2019. 4.9. It is contended that even though Petitioner on receipt of the memorandum so enclosed to Office Order dt.04.04.2019 under Annexure-13 series vide letter Page 7 of 22 // 8 // dt.06.06.2019 intimated that during pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, no proceeding should have been initiated, but no further action was taken thereafter with regard to the proceeding initiated on 04.04.2019. In the meantime, Petitioner also attained the age of superannuation having attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020, taking into account his date of birth so recorded in his Service Book as 26.05.1960. 4.10.It is contended that after attaining the age of superannuation, when Petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of pension and sought for information for non-release of the benefit vide Annexure-10, Opp. Party No.4 vide letter dt.20.06.2020 under Annexure-11, intimated the Petitioner that Petitioner has been removed from Government service w.e..f 18.08.2009, being found guilty of the charges, vide Order dt.11.05.2020. Vide another letter issued on 20.06.2020 under Annexure-12 series, petitioner was provided with the order of removal so issued vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 of Opp. Party No.4. Vide such Order dt.11.05.2020, Petitioner was shown removed from Government service w.e.f 18.08.2009, basing on the charges levelled against him vide Office Order dt.26.05.2010 of the erstwhile D.I of Schools, Anandapur and Office Order No.883 dt.04.04.2019 of Opp. Party No.4. 4.11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019 so available under Annexure-13 Page 8 of 22 // 9 // series, a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 in terms of the direction issued by O.P. No.2 in his order dt.05.12.2017 and no further progress was made to the said proceeding with passing of any final order till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020. 4.12. It is also contended that vide Office Order dt.26.05.2010, no such charges were ever framed against the Petitioner and such a fact was never reflected in Order dt.05.12.2017 of Opp. Party No.2. Vide Order dt.05.12.2017 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.2 only observed that since the Petitioner has remained on unauthorized absence for a period exceeding 5 years, the Proceeding under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules,1962 be initiated against him. It is accordingly contended that Office Order dt.11.05.2020, so communicated to the Petitioner under Anexure-12 series showing him to be removed from Government service w.e.f 18.08.2009, basing on Office Order dt.26.05.2010 of the then D.I of School, Anandapur and Office Order dt.04.04.2019 of B.E.O, Anandapur is prima facie illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.13. It is further contended that challenging the order of removal so issued vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure-12 series, Petitioner when preferred an appeal before Opp. Party No.2, the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the same and without following his Page 9 of 22 // 10 // own order dt.05.12.2017 rejected the appeal vide the impugned Order dt.06.11.2021 under Annexure-16. 4.14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure- 12 series was shown removed from Government service w.e.f 18.08.2009, and such an order of removal was passed, on the ground that Petitioner was found guilty of the charges vide Office Order dt.26.05.2010 and Office Order dt.04.04.2019 of the then D.I of School, Anandpur and B.E.O, Anandpur respectively. 4.15. It is contended that vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019, only the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and in terms of the said order, Petitioner cannot held to be found guilty of the charges. It is contended that no such order dt.26.05.2010 was ever issued to the Petitioner, holding therein that the Petitioner has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is accordingly contended that the Order of removal passed vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 of Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12, so confirmed vide Office Order dt.06.11.2021 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-16 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4.16. It is also contended that since at no point of time, Petitioner was found guilty of the charges in the proceeding initiated against him on 04.04.2019 under Annexure-13 Page 10 of 22 // 11 // series, the ground on which he was removed from service vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. This Court in course of hearing and taking into account the submission of the learned State Counsel that Petitioner has been rightly removed from his services vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 so confirmed vide Office Order dt.06.11.2021, passed the following order on 08.08.2024. is This matter through Hybrid “1. taken up Arrangement(Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Date chart and written notes of submission filed in Court be kept in record. 4. Considering the nature of order passed under Annexure-12, wherein Petitioner was removed from Government service, this Court directs learned Addl. Government Advocate to produce copy of Office Order No.1990 dtd.26.05.2010 and office order NO.883 dtd.04.04.2019 on the next date. 5. As requested, list this matter on 16th August, 2024.” 5.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid, order copy of Office Order dt.26.05.2010 and Office Order dt.04.04.2019 were produced before this Court. This Court, after going through Office Order dt.26.05.2010 found that vide the said order, the then D.I of Schools, Anandpur proposed to take action against the Petitioner under Rule-16 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Similarly, vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019, Opp. Party No.4 proposed to take action against the Petitioner under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Contents of Office Order dt.26.05.2010 and dt.04.04.2019 so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Page 11 of 22 // 12 // Advocate before this Court on 16.08.2024 reads as follows : “Office Order No.1990 Date 26.05.2010 Whereas Sri Padmanav Sethy, Ex-Headmaster, Badadanda Pry. School, Anandapur has disobeyed the order of the higher authorities, neglected in his duty, remained unauthorized absent from duty and violated official document for which it is proposed to take action against him under Rule-16 of the O.C.S(CCA) Rules- 1962. Office Order Dated 4th Apr.2019 No.883/Whereas Sri Padmanav Sethy, Ex- Headmaster, Badadanda Primary School, Anandapur has disobeyed the order of the in his duty, higher authorities, neglected remained unauthorized absent from duty for more than 9 years and violated official decorum for which it is proposed to take action against him under Rule-15 of the O.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1962.” 5.2. However, on the face of Office order dt.26.05.2010 and 04.04.2019, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.4 contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Level-IV Headmaster, he was transferred to Ullibasa Primary School vide Order dt.15.06.2009 of the then D.I of Schools, Anandpur. Petitioner in terms of Order dt.15.06.2009 was relieved from his duty w.e.f 17.08.2009 of the then B.D.O, Anandpur. Petitioner Page 12 of 22 // 13 // after being so relieved w.e.f 17.08.2009, instead of joining in his place of transfer i.e. Ullibasa Primary School, challenged the same before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1969(C) of 2009. 5.3. The Tribunal vide Order dt.31.08.2009 while disposing O.A. No.1969(C) of 2009, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. But Opp. Party No.2 vide his Office Order dt.09.10.2009, rejected the representation of the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to join in his place of transfer. But Petitioner in terms of the said order never joined in his place of posting at Ullibasa New Primary School. 5.4. However, in the meantime, vide Office Order dt.03.02.2010 of District Project Coordinator, Sarba Sikshya Abhijan, Keonjhar, Petitioner was deployed to work as C.R.C.C, Taratara Centre under Sarva Sikshya Abhijan. In terms of the said order issued by the D.P.C on 03.02.2010, Petitioner vide Office Order dt.27.05.2010 of the then D.I of Schools, was deployed to work as CRCC, Tartara Centre under Sarba Sikshya Abhijan Scheme with immediate effect. Pursuant to the said order, which is an additional assignment, Petitioner though joined on 01.07.2010, but he never joined in his place of transfer i.e. Ullibasa Primary School. However, prior to joining of the Petitioner as C.R.C.C on 01.07.2010, order dt.27.05.2010 had already been kept Page 13 of 22 // 14 // in abeyance vide Office Order dt.04.06.2010 of the then D.I of Schools, Anandspur under Annexure-A/4. 5.5. Challenging order dt.04.06.2010 so passed under Annexure-A/4, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3341(C) of 2010. Claiming release of his salary, Petitioner also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3032(C ) of 2011. The Tribunal vide a common order passed on 17.01.2017, disposed of both O.A. No.3341 of 2010 and 3032 of 2011 inter alia with some observation and direction. 5.6. Petitioner challenging the common order dt.27.01.2017 of the Tribunal approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.6727 of 2017. This Court vide order dt.14.07.2017 while disposing the matter, directed Opp. Party No.2 to enquire into the matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner regarding his grievance from 2009 onwards as well as the administrative decision taken by the authority. 5.7. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.6727 of 2017, Opp. Party No.2 took up the matter and passed an order on 05.12.2017 under Annexure-5. Petitioner challenging order dt.05.12.2017, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. NO.266 (C) of 2018. It is however contended that much prior to such passing of order dt.05.12.2017, vide Office Order Page 14 of 22 // 15 // dt.25.05.2010 of the then D.I. of School, Anandapur, a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and the said memorandum though was issued vide letter dt.11.10.2010 under Annexure-B/4, but the same could not be served on the Petitioner and instead returned back. 5.8. Thereafter, when memorandum dt.25.05.2010 was served on the Petitioner, he refused to accept the same. Accordingly with due appointment of the Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner, the enquiry was conducted.. Since Petitioner never attended the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Basing on such report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, a show-cause was issued to the Petitioner vide Office letter No.1298 dt.07.04.2017 of Opp. Party No.4 proposing therein to remove him from Government service. However, since Petitioner never submitted his reply to such show-cause issued on 07.04.2017, he was removed from Government Service vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure-12 series w.e.f 18.08.2009. 5.9. It is contended that challenging order dt.11.05.2020, Petitioner when approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.19638 of 2020, this Court while disposing the matter vide Order dt.20.08.2020 granted liberty to the Page 15 of 22 // 16 // Petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two (2) weeks hence and with a further direction to the appellate authority to give due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and to take into consideration as to whether Petitioner can be removed from Government service from a retrospective date. 5.10. It is contended that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in its order dt.20.08.2020, Petitioner filed an appeal before Opp. Party No.2 and the appellate authority after due appreciation of the grounds of appeal, rejected the same vide order dt.06.11.2021 under Annexure-16.It is accordingly contended that since in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide proceeding dt.25.05.2010, Petitioner neither received the memorandum nor participated in the inquiry, basing on the report of the Inquiry Officer and the show-cause issued on 07.04.2017, Petitioner was removed from Government service vide Order dt. 11.05.2020 w.e.f. 18.08.2009, which was confirmed vide Office Order dt.06.11.2021 of Opp. Party No.2 under Anexure-16. 5.11. Making all these submissions, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since the Petitioner w.e.f 18.08.2009 remained on unauthorized absent and he was found guilty of the charges in the proceeding initiated against him vide Office Order dt.25.05.2010 and Page 16 of 22 // 17 // 04.04.2019, he was rightly removed from his services, which requires no interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials placed before this Court, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Level-V Headmaster vide Office Order dt.02.08.2003 under Annexure-1. While so continuing as a Level-V Asst. Teacher in Badadanda Primary School , Petitioner vide Office Order dt.15.06.2009 was transferred to Ullibasa Primary School and he was relieved w.e.f 17.08.2009 of the then B.D.O, Anandapur. Challenging the order of transfer so passed on 15.06.2009 and the relieve order dt.17.08.2009, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. NO.1969(C) of 2009. 6.1. The Tribunal vide Order dt.31.07.2009 when directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim so made in O.A. No.1969 (C ) of 2009, Opp. Party No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner. As found, on the face of such rejection issued vide Office Order dt.09.10.2009, in terms of letter dt.03.02.2010 of District Project Coordinator, S.S.A., Keonjhar, Petitioner vide Office Order dt.27.05.2010 under Annexure-3 was deployed to work as C.R.C.C, Tartara Centre under Sarva Sikshya Avijan Scheme with immediate effect. Page 17 of 22 // 18 // 6.2. In terms of the order dt.27.05.2010, Petitioner joined as C.R.C.C in Tartara Centre on 01.07.2010 as reflected under Annexure-4. But when it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner that order dt.27.05.2010 has been kept in abeyance vide Order dt.04.06.2010, Petitioner challenging the same, again approached the Tribunal by filing OA NO.3341 of 2010. Petitioner seeking release of his salary on the face of his joining as C.R.C.C on 01.07.2010, also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3032(C ) of 2011. The Tribunal vide a common order dt.27.01.2017 when disposed of OA No. 3341(C ) of 2010 and 3032(C ) of 2011, Petitioner challenging the common order dt.27.01.2017, approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.6727 of 2017. 6.3. It is found that this Court vide order dt.14.07.2017 while disposing the Writ Petition directed Opp. Party No.2 to enquire into the matter and give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner regarding his grievance from 2009 onwards as well as the administrative decisions taken by the authority. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP (C ) No.6727 of 2017, Opp. Party No.2 passed an order on 05.12.2017 under Annexure-5 with an observation that a proceeding under Rule-15 of OCS (CCA) Rules was required to be initiated against the Petitioner as the Petitioner has remained on unauthorized absent for more than 5 years, violating Page 18 of 22 // 19 // Rule 72(2) of the Odisha Service Code. Petitioner challenging order dt. 05.12.2017 filed O.A. No.260(C ) of 2018. 6.4. It is found that while disposing the claim of the Petitioner vide order dt.05.12.2017, though it was brought to the notice of Opp. Party No.2 that a proceeding has been drawn up against the Petitioner vide Office Order 3084 dt.11.10.2010 of B.E.O, Anandapur (erstwhile D.I, Anandapur) and the order of deployment of the Petitioner as C.R.C.C has been kept in abeyance vide Office Order dt.04.06.2010, but Opp. Party No.2 taking into account the submission of the concerned authority that proceeding dt.11.10.2010 and order dt.04.06.2010 since could not be served on the Petitioner held that appropriate steps should have been taken to make paper publication of the same. Taking into account the stand of the concerned authority and the Petitioner, Opp. Party No.2 vide Order dt.05.12.2017 observed that a proceeding is required to be initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. 6.5. It is found that pursuant to the order passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 05.12.2017, a proceeding under Rule -15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 was initiated against the Petitioner vide Officer order dt. 04.04.2019 under Annexure-13 series. However, it is found that Petitioner was never held guilty of the charges in the proceeding Page 19 of 22 // 20 // initiated against the Petitioner vide Order dt.26.05.2010 or vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019. 6.6. Since Petitioner was never held guilty of the charges in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Office Order dt.26.05.2010 or vide Office Order dt.04.04.2019, it is the view of this Court that in absence of any such finding holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges, no order of removal could have been passed vide the impugned Office Order dt.11.05.2020 of Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12 removing the petitioner from his services w.e.f 18.08.2009, further confirmed by Opp. Party No.2 vide Office Order dt.06.11.2021 under Annexure-16. 6.7. Since at no point of time in proceeding initiated against the petitioner on 26.05.2010 and 04.04.2019, Petitioner was ever held guilty of the charges, the order of removal passed by Opp. Party No.4 vide Office order dt.11.05.2020 under Annexure-12 series, so confirmed by Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt.06.11.2021 under Annexure-16, as per the considered view of this Court, are not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.8. Not only that the proceeding dt.26.05.2010 was initiated under Rule-16 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, and in a proceeding initiated under Rule-16 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, no major punishment can be imposed. In a proceeding initiated under Rule-16 of the Page 20 of 22 // 21 // OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, only minor punishments can be imposed as provided under Rule-13 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. 6.9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has been illegally removed from Government service w.e.f 18.08.2009 vide Office Order dt.11.05.2020 of Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12 series, so upheld by Opp. Party No.2 vide Office order dt.06.11.2021 un Annexure-16. 6.10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash Office order dt.11.05.2020, so issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12 series and confirmed vide Office Order dt.06.11.2021 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-16. While quashing both the orders, this Court held the Petitioner to have retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020. 6.11. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No.4 to regularize the services of the Petitioner for the period from 18.08.2009 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020 as due and admissible, but on notional basis 7 and thereafter release the pension and pensionary benefit as due and admissible, in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to complete the entire exercise, as directed, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Page 21 of 22 // 22 // Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 23rd Sept., 2024/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 10:42:49 Page 22 of 22

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments