Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8798/2020 on 3 February, 2021
Author: S.Panda
Bench: S.Panda
W.P.(C) No. 8798 of 2020
06. 03.02.2021 This matter is taken up through video
conferencing.
Heard Mr.P.K.Parhi, learned Asst. Solicitor
General for the petitioners and Mr.C.P.Sahani, learned
counsel appearing for opposite party No.1 through caveat.
Petitioners-Union of India represented through
its Secretary-cum-Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan
Sansad Marg, New-Delhi and others have filed this writ
petition challenging the order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in
O.A. No. 401 of 2014.
From the impugned order it appears that the
present opposite party as applicant was engaged as a
Gramin Dak Sevak under the petitioners. While working as
such a charge sheet dated 9.4.2008 was issued under the
provisions of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules,
2001 which was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer. The I.O.
ks
submitted his report dated 4.5.2011 with the findings that
the charges were not proved against the applicant. But the
respondent No.4, being the disciplinary authority issued a
disagreement note on which the reply was submitted.
Pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2011 and corrigendum
dated 7.9.2011 the applicant was dismissed from the
engagement. Thereafter appeal was filed on 11.10.2011 but
the same was rejected by petitioner No.3 on 27.6.2012.
Subsequently revision was filed and the same was dismissed
by the Revisional Authority on 22.5.2013.
Challenging the aforesaid orders applicant has
2
preferred O.A. No. 401 of 2014 with a prayer to quash the
same and to direct the petitioners to reinstate him in service
with all consequential benefits with back wages and 18%
interest thereon and impose exemplary cost and
compensation. It was stated by the applicant before the
Tribunal that the statements recorded in preliminary inquiry
cannot be relied upon for imparting punishment. There is
violation of the spirit of Article 14 and the rule 15(2) of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Before disagreeing with the TO's
report the respondent No.4 should have given the applicant
an opportunity of hearing. The applicant did not have
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The respondent
No.4 acted as a judge of his own cause in the case since one
of the charge is misbehavior to the respondent No.4.
A counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before
the Tribunal taking a stand that the applicant was charge
sheeted vide order dated 9.4.2008. After the applicant
denied the charges, the Inquiry Officer was appointed to
inquire into the charges. The findings of the I.O. as per the
report were that the charges were not proved. But the
respondent No.4 did not agree with the report of the I.O. on
the ground that the evidence was not evaluated properly for
which the disagreement note was issued. It is also stated
that after following due procedure, penalty of dismissal was
imposed by respondent No.4 by order dated 30.8.2011. It is
also stated that Sri Jangulu Kumbhara against whom the
applicant had claimed to have complained, was also removed
from engagement. As per Rule 15, the disagreement note
along with the inquiry report was supplied to the applicant
3
for his reply.
The Tribunal in the impugned order also
observed that there is no evidence to support the findings of
the authorities in the impugned orders of punishment. The
respondent No.4 chose to conduct the preliminary inquiry
himself and took the written statement of the witnesses,
although he was the person interested in the case as one of
the charge was the applicant's misbehavior to him vide
charges in Article-III. The said fact has not been discussed
by the appellate as well as revisonal authority in their
orders. The respondent No.4 who had complained of
misbehavior against the applicant functioned as the
applicant's disciplinary authority and in that capacity he
had issued the charge sheet against the applicant on the
basis of statement of the witnesses which has been recorded
by respondent No.4 during preliminary inquiry. But when
the inquiry report was submitted, another incumbent was in
office of the respondent No.4 who had issued the
disagreement note and passed the impugned punishment
order of dismissal from engagement. The Tribunal taking
into consideration the above fact passed the impugned
orders by quashing the charge sheet dated 9.4.2008,
punishment order dated 30.8.2008, the order dated
27.6.2012 of the Appellate Authority as well as the order
dated 22.5.2013 of the Revisional Authority and also
observed that the applicant to be reinstated in his
engagement as GDS with all consequential benefits
including the TRCA for the period he was out of the
engagement due to the order of dismissal. The respondents
4
will be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the
applicant afresh in accordance with the law.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, as
there is no error apparent on the face of the record, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as such the
writ petition is dismissed.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may
utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's
website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the
manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25th
March, 2020.
..................
S.Panda,J.
....................... S.K.Panigrahi, J