Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jayanta Das vs National Small Industries Corporation ... on 20 March, 2024
1 O.A. 350/00285/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/00285/2020 Date of order: 20/03/2024
M.A. 350/00055/2021
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kr. Das, Administrative Member
Sri Jayanta Das,
Son of Late Kartick Chandra Das,
Residing at 31, Purbayan, Chingrighata,
Canai South Road,
Post Office - Nowbhanga,
Police Station - Pragati Maidan,
Kolkata - 700 105,
Having place of appointment at
Kolkata, West Bengal and
Retired as Manager, NSIC Ltd.
...Applicant
-VERSUS-
1. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Having Corporate Head Office at
"NSIC Bhawan",
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi - 110 020,
Service through the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Board of Directors-cum-the
Appellate Authority,
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Having Corporate Head Office at
"NSIC Bhawan",
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi - 110 020.
3. The Zonal General Manager (East - I),
2 O.A. 350/00285/2020
Disciplinary Authority,
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Zonal Office (East - I),
20B, Abdul Hamid Street (7th Floor),
Kolkata - 700 069.
4. The Zonal General Manager (East-II) ,
Disciplinary Authority,
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Zonal Office (East - II),
IDCO Plot No. 6,
2nd Floor,
Block - D,
Mancheswar Industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda,
Odisha,
Pin - 753010.
5. The Union of India,
Service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises,
Udyog Bhawan,
Rafi Marg,
New Delhi,
Pin - 110 011.
..............Respondents
For the Applicants : Mr. R. Dey Sarkar, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. C. Sinha, Counsel
O R D E R (Oral)
Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member The applicant herein, while working as Manager (under Suspension) at Sub- Branch Balasore of The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. was served with a major penalty Charge Memorandum dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure A/5 refer) 3 O.A. 350/00285/2020 under Rule 8 of the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Control & Appeal Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules, 1968").
1.1. On receipt of the charge memorandum, the applicant vide his statement of defence dated 03.04.2017 denied the charges levelled against him.
1.2. On denial of the charges levelled against the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority decided to conduct departmental inquiry against the applicant and had appointed Inquiry Officer to inqure into the charges vide order dated 12.09.2017.
1.3. The Inquiry Officer had granted ample opportunity to the applicant.
However, he did not participate in the inquiry. Therefore, the IO had decided to conduct the ex-parte proceeding/inquiry against the applicant and the said decision was also conveyed to him. However, the applicant had chosen not to participate in the departmental inquiry and thus, the inquiry was held ex-parte against the applicant by the IO. 1.4. On conclusion of the Inquiry, the IO had submitted his Inquiry Report dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure A/19 refer) wherein he had recorded the finding that the charges Nos. I to VII levelled against the applicant stands established and proved during the inquiry.
1.5. The copy of the Inquiry Report dated 20.02.2018 was supplied to the applicant for his representation to it, however, he has not filed any representation as requested by the Disciplinary Authority. 1.6. The Appointing Authority, who is competent to decide the major penalty in the case of the applicant in light of Circular No. SIC/Pers.
4 O.A. 350/00285/2020 I/10(10)/08 dated 03.10.2008 by considering the material on record including the record regarding various notices and opportunity offered to the delinquent applicant to participate in the inquiry, the representation of the applicant filed subsequent to service of inquiry report upon him and by agreeing with the finding of the IO as well by recording cogent reasons held that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and had decided to impose major penalty of Dismissal upon the applicant with following observation and order as mentioned in his final penalty order dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure A/20) which reads as under:
(i) The competent authority is convinced that the inquiry was conducted as per the prescribed procedure, but the Charged Employee (CE) - delinquent did not participate in the inquiry proceeding on one or the other pretext despite various notices and opportunities provided to him for his defence. As such, the inquiry was conducted on ex-parte basis after adhering to the principle of natural justice.
(ii) There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the applicant and he could not produce any material facts or evidence to dispute the same.
(iii) The applicant has not submitted any representation on the findings of the Inquiry Officer's report. Though he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings which were held on Ex-
parte basis, however, the applicant through his various letters / 5 O.A. 350/00285/2020 representations raised certain issues to the effect that it is beyond the jurisdiction of NSIC to hold internal departmental inquiry against an ex-employee and other preliminary issues in respect to disciplinary proceedings instituted against him had been dealt with from time to time and the decision/ruling of the competent authority were conveyed to him.
(iv) The charges proved against the applicant were of a grave and serious nature, putting investment of the Corporation at a greater risk, as such, he is liable for major penalty.
(v) The Appointing Authority in case of the applicant has decided to impose major penalty of "Dismissal from service"
w.e.f. from the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.11.2016 and forfeiture of his retiral dues (i.e. Gratuity and Encashment of Leave) under the NSIC Control & Appeal Rules, 1968.
(vi) The Appellate Authority, in his case, would be the Board of Directors.
(vii) The period of suspension i.e. from 24.08.2016 to 30.11.2016, will not be treated as period spent on duty by the CE (the applicant herein) and he will not be paid any pay and allowance for the said period. However, the Subsistence Allowance already paid to him will remain paid.
1.7. The applicant had filed an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 09.07.2019. The said appeal came to 6 O.A. 350/00285/2020 be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure A/23 refer).
Therefore, being aggrieved with the inquiry report dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure A/19), the final penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure A/20), the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Respondent authorities denying release of retiral dues during the pendency of appeal of the applicant (Annexure A/22) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure A/upholding the 'Dismissal' order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the AT, 1985 to quash and set aside the said impugned orders and further pray for issuance of a direction to release all retiral dues in his favour.
2. On receipt of notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Ld. Counsel for the respondents mainly submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was instituted against the applicant in terms of the Rules, 1968. The IO in his report dated 20.02.2018 and the competent authority/ Disciplinary Authority while imposing major penalty upon the applicant vide order dated 27.03.2018 had categorically held that the departmental inquiry was conducted after adhering to the principles of natural justice. Further, while agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority had recorded cogent reason to hold that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and by considering the gravity of the proved charges and putting investment of the Corporation (the NSICL) at a greater risk, had found the applicant liable for major penalty. Accordingly, the major penalty of 'Dismissal' ordered by the competent authority vide order dated 27.03.2018 is just and proper.
7 O.A. 350/00285/2020 Further, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority had considered the appeal of the applicant and by assigning cogent reason had rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.01.2020. Therefore, it is submitted that in absence of any procedural lacunae in the disciplinary proceeding held against the applicant, no interference of this Tribunal is called for.
3. As against the reply of the respondents, the applicant herein has filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the O.A. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer had erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant stands established.
Additionally it is submitted that as per the amendments/additions in Rule 4(i), Rule 6(i) & 6(ii) of NSIC Limited, Control & Appeal Rules, 1968 (Circular Dated 03.10.2008) upto the level of Chief Manager, the Zonal Manager / In-charge of the Zone is competent to take disciplinary action and accordingly, the Zonal General Manager (East), Kolkata has to be appointed as Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant. However, by giving retrospective operation/effect to the notification dated 12.10.2017, the Zonal General Manager (East)/II, Bhubaneswar has been appointed as the Disciplinary Authority in the present case that too without any specific mentioning in the said notification or modification in the charge memorandum.
Therefore, the respondents had illegally and arbitrarily instituted disciplinary proceeding against the applicant and despite repeated requested of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority is not competent to initiate the proceeding, but has not given any heed to his request. Thereby, there has been gross violation of the 8 O.A. 350/00285/2020 principles of natural justice in the process adopted by the respondents. Thus the impugned orders as required to be set aside.
3.1. Further, it is submitted that the applicant, at any point of time, was not involved in any financial irregularities and had not caused any loss to NSIC Limited. In this regard, the applicant referred to the annexure to the O.A./rejoinder, more particularly, the statement of the Auditors report as well as NSIC Management report for the year 2017-2018 wherein it has been stated that "UBI with some malafide intention, issues two sets of Bank guarantees of the same number, one to NSIC and other to the Unit, which contrary to the rules laid down in their Management system and against the banking norms. No financial loss was caused and the amount is fully recoverable and considered good". Further, it is submitted that NSIC, in its financial report, had nowhere alleged against the applicant, as such, the applicant was wrongly implicated and suspended by the respondents. 3.2. The applicant reiterated that he is a retired employee and residing at Kolkata. Further, it is stated that though the Disciplinary Authority, being the appointing authority, having office at Kolkata but illegally fixed the place of inquiry at New Delhi that too without even considering the objection submitted by the applicant. 3.3. It is submitted that the applicant had, as such, filed his reply/written statement of defence dated 03.04.2017 before the Disciplinary Authority at Regional Office at Kolkata, however, the Inquiry Officer had not considered the same. (Annexure A/14 collectively refer) 9 O.A. 350/00285/2020 3.4. It is further submitted that criminal proceeding in pending for trial in the Spl. Court at Barasat wherein the CID had filed the chargesheet and, as such, there were certain fraudulent activities, in which the Bank official of UBI, Hazra Branch and Jadavpur Branch of Kolkata issued dual Bank guarantees on the same number in respect of the companies wherein the Bank officials have been arrested based on the FIR filed by the respondents herein.
3.5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would argue that nothing has been recovered from the applicant and the applicant cannot be held guilty as no offence has been attributed to him so far the applicant has not been convicted of any offence and, as such, the trial is pending before the Spl. Court at Barasat, North 24 Paraganas, the Disciplinary Authority had not taken into consideration the very said fact and thus the applicant ought not to have been subject to disciplinary proceeding and implicated in a case for which the applicant is not responsible at all.
3.6. Ld. Counsel would further argue that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Assistant Labour Commission (C), Bhubaneswar has passed the order dated 12.11.2018 allowing the applicant's retiral dues (Gratuity) and the Appellate Authority being the Deputy Chief Labour Commission (C), Bhubaneswar also held that there is a case of alleged financial irregularities against which employer has proposed to take action for dismissal issuing show-cause notice against the employee. In the 10 O.A. 350/00285/2020 absence of conviction of the applicant for an offence involving moral turpitude, he should not have been deprived to receive the legitimate amount of Gratuity.
3.7. In other words, Ld. Counsel would argue that the employer had held up the payment of Gratuity anticipating the conviction likely to be awarded by the Special Court which shall lead to forfeiture of the Gratuity amount and the said stand on the part of the respondents is not tenable in the eye of law.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. It emerges from the record that while the applicant was working as Manager with the respondents at Sub-Branch Balasore, Orissa, he was served with a major penalty Charge Memorandum dated 24.11.2016 under Rule 8 of the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Control & Appeal Rules, 1968 for the alleged charges that :
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - 1
(i) While he was posted as Manager (BD) at Branch Office, Salt Lake, Kolkata during the period 2013-2014, 2014-2015 he failed to conduct proper pre-sanction inspection of various Units by ignoring the fact of insufficient infrastructure possessed by he Units like - arear occupied by the Units vis-a-
versa nature and volume of their operations, value of machinery used by the Units not commensurate with their size of operations. Despite above, he recommended the proposal for consideration by the Acceptance Committee, thus, he favoured the Units and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and induldged in act unbecoming of an employee of the corporation and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3 of NSIC Conduct Rules, 1966.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II 11 O.A. 350/00285/2020 The Charged Employee did not follow the prescribed guidelines stipulated in the Financial Service Manual (MNL:
FSC: 01) - addition 05 and 06 at the time of processing the application of the Units for availing financial assistance under the Scheme of Raw Material Assistance against Bank Guarantee. Vital parameters relating to scrutiny of the documents submitted by the Units, conducting the appraisal of the proposal were grossly ignored and compromised on the quality of appraisal.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - III Further, it is alleged that he had not verified the credential of law material supplies by not cross-verifying the Unit's VAT registration as appearing in their invoices which processing the payments to these suppliers on behalf of RMA Units. This was essential to confirm the guarantees of trade transactions and thus he favoured the Units.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - IV He did not obtain any supporting documents from the Units at the time of issuing Memorandum stating the receipt of repayment of dues (through cheque/DD/PO) by the Units and thus acted in a purely arbitrary manner.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - V He indulged in splitting of single receipt of Rupees Three crore amongst two Units crediting account of each Unit with 1.5 crore without obtaining any supporting documents and favour certain Units, thus acted in purely arbitrarily and dishonest manner.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - VI He did not cross verify the source of receipts and wrongly showed them as repayment of dues by the Units whereas United Bank of India has informed having made these payments on account of alleged invocation of Bank Guarantees. Moreover, he also processed the payments which were released to suppliers of raw material on behalf of their Units against such reeipts, thus made the assistance rendered as 'Unsecured' .
12 O.A. 350/00285/2020 ARTICLE OF CHARGE - VII He grossly violated the guidelines with respect to "Annual Renewal of Limits, Sanctioned to Units as stipulated in Financial Service Manual (MNL : FSC: 01) - Edition 06 (refer page 47 & 48 of Financial Service Manual) and in sheer violation issued the annual renewal letters to Units (signed by himself on behalf of Senior Branch Mananger, BO Salt Lake without obtaining approval of the competent authority and non- compliance of the guidelines contained thereunder. Out of six such cases, in two cases, fresh Bank Guarantees of Rupees Six Crores were obtained which later on were reported to be not issued by Bank as ascertained during the recommendation process, which led to making the investment of the Corporation as 'Unsecured'.
(Annexure A/5 refer) (Emphasis Supplied)
6. It is noticed that after receipt of aforesaid charge memorandum dated 24.11.2016, the applicant on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.2016. In this regard, the Senior Branch Manager, Bhubaneswar vide Office Order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure A/6 refer) had considered that the applicant stands retired from service and further stated therein that the departmental proceedings have been initiated against him, as such, he shall be required to attend the inquiry proceedings as and when called for.
7. At this stage, it is apt to mention that Rule 3(3) of NSIC Control & Appeal Rules, 1968 stipulates that, "disciplinary proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceeding and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service". In terms of the said Rule position, the respondents have denied the claim of the 13 O.A. 350/00285/2020 applicant that the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him is beyond the jurisdiction of NSIC as he is a retired employee. We do not find any legal infirmities in the stand taken by the respondents in this regard.
8. On receipt of the charge memorandum, undisputedly, the applicant had denied the charges levelled against him vide his letter/representation dated 03.04.2017. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority decided to proceed with the department inquiry against the applicant and appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. The DA had also appointed Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the Article of Charge before the Inquiry Officer. The copy of appointment of IO & PO vide order dated 12.09.2017 has been supplied to the applicant.
8.1. The record reveals that vide representation dated 09.01.2018 the Charged Employee (CE) i.e. the applicant herein had raised various issues regarding jurisdiction of NSIC Head Office to conduct proceeding/inquiry at HO, Delhi against the applicant as well the grievance that pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 25663(W) of 2017 with High Court at Calcutta inquiry proceedings should not be conducted by NSIC Limited.
8.2. Further, he would contend that while continuation of the criminal proceedings, disciplinary proceedings/inquiry on the same set of facts cannot be continued simultaneously, the said representation of the applicant has been replied by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure A/11 refer) wherein the respondents had categorically stated that he order of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta 14 O.A. 350/00285/2020 dated 12.10.2017 is self explanatory and as such did not pass any order staying or restraining NSIC from conducting disciplinary proceeding against the applicant which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition.
8.3. Further, in respect to objections of the applicant that NSIC HO has no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him as his appointing authority was NSIC Kolkata, the respondents had also informed the applicant that said objection is misconceived as he was appointed as LDC vide letter dated 04.03.1991 issued by Kolkata Office and the terms of Para 2(ii) of the same order, his service will be governed by the service rules of NSIC Limited and other relevant rules and orders in force from time to time.
In this regard, it was also conveyed to the applicant that since the Head Office of the Corporation as well as the office of CVO are located at New Delhi and for administrative convenience and safe custody of relevant record, the competent authority has decided to hold enquiry proceeding at New Delhi and, accordingly, not accepted the request of the applicant to conduct inquiry at Kolkata. The grievance of the applicant in respect to his entitlement of travel, lodging and boarding expenditure for attending inquiry, he was again informed by the DA that as per the general rule for TA/DA, a retired employee required to attend departmental inquiry instituted against him may be allowed travelling allowance treating him as on tour by the shortest route for the journey in connection with the inquiry from 15 O.A. 350/00285/2020 his 'hometown' to the place of inquiry and back. The TA / DA shall be paid/reimbursed at par with the last post held by the retired employee at the time of retirement. The DA had considered the allegations of the applicant about appointment of Inquiry Officer as well Presenting Officer and their alleged attitude towards the applicant of biased nature has been examined thoroughly and found that there is no substance or truth in the said allegation. With the aforesaid cogent reason, the representation of the applicant was not acceded to by the DA vide order dated 13.02.2018 and copy of the same was, as such, served upon the applicant.
In such fact and circumstances, the grievance raised in this O.A. by the applicant that the DA has not considered his objection in respect to the competency of the authority to institute the disciplinary proceeding and other grounds has been, as such, considered and denied with cogent reason. Therefore, the said submission of the applicant is no tenable.
9. It is also revealed that despite ample opportunity granted by the Inquiry Officer, the applicant did not participate in the inquiry. Not only that undisputedly the IO had conveyed his decision that since the applicant is not attending the inquiry, he has taken a conscious decision to proceed with the inquiry ex-parte, even then also, the applicant has chosen not to participate in the inquiry process. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not granted any opportunity to participate in the inquiry or he was not afforded any opportunity to submit his defence.
16 O.A. 350/00285/2020 9.1. Further, it is noticed that the Inquiry Report dated 20.02.2018 was supplied to the applicant by the DA vide letter dated 24.02.2018, by giving opportunity to submit his representation thereon. However, the applicant had not filed any reply/representation to the inquiry report though sufficient opportunity was granted to file reply.
9.2. Thereafter, as noted hereinabove the Disciplinary Authority by agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well by assigning cogent reason for it held that (i) the competent authority is convinced that the inquiry was conducted as per the prescribed procedure, but the Charged Employee (CE) - delinquent did not participate in the inquiry proceeding on one or the other pretext despite various notices and opportunities provided to him for his defence. As such, the inquiry was conducted on ex-parte basis after adhering to the principle of natural justice. (ii) There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the applicant and he could not produce any material facts or evidence to dispute the same and by considering the material on record, held that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and had imposed major penalty punishment of "Dismissal" vide order dated 27.03.2018.
It can be seen that the DA has assigned cogent reason for its conclusion and had categorically held that the inquiry has been held by following the principles of natural justice. We do not find any procedural lapse in concluding the disciplinary proceeding by the Disciplinary Authority against the applicant and the findings recorded in the order dated 27.03.2018.
17 O.A. 350/00285/2020 9.3. So far, the grievance of the applicant that while dismissing his appeal by the Appellate Authority without assigning any reason is also not tenable since the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors had considered the grievance ventilated by the applicant as well the matter regarding release of amount of Gratuity which is under adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court at Cuttack and recorded its finding that the claim / relief cannot be considered in another forum and the claim to that extent is barred by resjudicata. Further, it was held that the appeal does not contain any additional facts which were not examined by the Inquiry Officer earlier. Accordingly, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.03.2018 has been upheld.
10. At this stage, it is apt to mention that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 had held that "judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the Court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding on the evidence."
10.1. In the present case, by assigning cogent reason, the Disciplinary Authority had recorded its finding that charges levelled against the applicant stands proved. Suffice to state that in absence of any contrary material brought on record during the inquiry / proceeding it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the DA is perverse or 18 O.A. 350/00285/2020 based on no evidence. On the contrary, it emerges from the record that by examining the material on record, the Disciplinary Authority recorded that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and considering the seriousness and gravity of the said proved charges, imposed major penalty upon the applicant. 10.2. Further, by referring to the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457 also held that "the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiry/proceeding exercised by the departmental / Appellate Authorities discharged by Court/Tribunal is well circumscribed by limits of correcting error of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principle of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority."
In the present case, as noted hereinabove, we do not find any procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no procedural lacunae in the decision making process in respect to disciplinary proceeding held against the applicant and order passed by the DA dated 27.03.2018 as well the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.01.2020.
Further, during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents had considered the representation of the applicant regarding release of retiral dues and had 19 O.A. 350/00285/2020 conveyed vide letter dated 10.12.2019 to the applicant that the order passed by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 26.09.2019 upholding the order passed by the Controlling Authority cum Assistant Labour Commission directing the release of the entire Gratuity amount has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vide order dated 30.10.2019 in IA No. 14701 of 2019 in WP (C) No. 20160/2019. Under the circumstances, the grievance as raised by the applicant in the present O.A. in respect to said Order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the respondents do not stand. We do not find any illegality in rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 26.10.2019 by the respondents with the aforesaid observation.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the O.A. lacks merit and same is dismissed accordingly. M.A., if any, also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kr. Das) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sp