Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Asutosh Rout vs Posts on 7 April, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
Reserved on 25.03.2026 Pronounced on 07.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Asutosh Rout, aged about 32 years, S/o.
Pramod Kumar Rout, Residing at Suryalok
Lane, Chandi Chhak, P.Ο. Cuttack G.P.O.,
P.S. Lalbag, Dist. Cuttack-753001.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Union Of India, Ministry of
Communication & IT, Represented through
Secretary Deapartment of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Odisha
Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha-
751001.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQRS),
O/o- CPMG Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khordha-751001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bhadrak Division, At / P.O./ Dist. Bhadrak-
756100.
5. Santosh Kumar Kamila, Residing at Sahid
Nagar, in front of Sparsh Hospital,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khordha-751007.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.04.07
15:37:07 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
6. Bipin Bihari Mohanty, working as Senior
Superintendent of Post offices, Puri
Division, Puri, Po/Dist-Puri-752001.
7. Ajay Kumar Swain Inquiry officer-cum-
Asst. Supdt. of Posts (I/C) Khurda Sub-
Division, Khurda-752055.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.Rath, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.Samantaray, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, based on the stand taken in the pleadings, has submitted that the applicant was working as Postal Assistant in Bhadrak Head Post Office. Alleging misbehavior, manhandling and assault by the applicant and others, Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, who was then working as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Out Door), Bhadrak Division, submitted FIR against the applicant on 13/15.01.2018 before the IIC, Bhadrak Town Police Station, Bhadrak, which was registered as PS Case No. 18/2018 against the applicant and others and a copy of the FIR was also submitted by Sri B.K.Mohanty before Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, then working as RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak. Based on the said FIR, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty also lodged an FIR before the IIC, Bhadrak Town Police Station against the applicant and others on 20.01.2018 and sent copy of the same to SP, Bhadrak, Collector and District Magistrate, Bhadrak, and CPMG, Odisha, Bhubaneswar stating inter alia as under:
"In continuation of my written complaint dated 13.01.2018 sent by Registered Post and also through email (to District Police Office), I write to inform about the hooliganism and criminal activities of Shri Ajav Kumar Rout, SPM, Bhadrak College Sub Post Office on leave and residing in Qr. No.6/Type-III of Bhadrak Head Post Office campus and his accomplices namely Shri Asutosh Rout and Shri Biswanath Jena, both Postal Assistants working in Bhadrak Head Post Office with moral and political supports of two political heavy-weights of Bhadrak District.
I have collected information that the aforesaid trio alongwith Shri Laxmidhar Mohalik (Part-time gardener and henchman and bottle friend of Shri Ajay Kumar Rout) accompanied by of some outsiders have vandalized my residential quarter No.4, Type-III in Bhadrak Head Post Office campus by entering Inside it illegally by breaking open the lock used by me in my absence. It is gathered that they have put some wine bottles (may be empty) and other objectionable materials and taken their video to show the same to others with the intention to malign my character. I also apprehend that they have taken away or RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 destroyed some of my valuable belongings including cash, my personal HP laptop, pen-drive and Sony hard-disk-drive (having private and personal data/information), several official records and books-both official and literary.
It is to mention that the said Sri Ajay Kumar Rout is staying in Qr. No.6, Type-III in the same building where I used to stay as my official post-quarter. He is a follower of state ruling party and doing his business under patronage of two political heavyweights while remaining of leave from duty on medical ground without prior approval. He has converted the quarter to a centre of political activity by allowing entry to the quarter to many outsiders who frequent the quarter and stay with said Shri Rout as Shri Rout's spouse (a working lady) and children reside in Bhubaneswar. The quarter is used by said Shri Rout to serve wine and feast to outsiders and his followers and to indulge in illegal and objectionable activities. With frequent entry of outsiders, the peace, tranquility and sanctity of the residential quarter is lost. I have raised oral objections to such activity for which Shri Rout was nurturing a grudge against me.
I would also like to mention the link of vandalizing my residential quarter to other aspects of irregular and criminal behaviour. In the past i have written several times to District administration of Bhadrak to take action to evict the unauthorized vending stalls/shops standing on the encroached approach road in front of Bhadrak Head Post office. For the last time I had put the complaint to the District Magistrate in the matter on 14.12.2017 on tweeter. The District Magistrate forwarded the tweet to the Sub- Collector and the Executive Officer, Bhadrak Municipality. On the same day a reply through the tweet was received from the Tahasildar, Bhadrak to the effect that the RI, Sadar has been asked to take action to submit G Memo for booking of cases under OPLE Act to carry out eviction. Images of the tweets are attached. This information was leaked by said Sri Rout to the unauthorized vendors who are up in arms against me. Their anger towards me has been encashed by said Shri Rout to incite them against me for resorting to criminal activity. I learn that said Shri Rout invited the unauthorized vendors including a lady (who was earlier doing proxy MPKBY Agency for RD Deposits and now jobless due to withdrawal of MPKBY agency from the concerned person and whom Shri Rout is planning to hire to use against me) to have a view of materials kept inside my RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 residential quarter (including the objectionable items) to give an impression that I am a person with bad character. I wonder what authority all these people have, to go inside my residence to invade my privacy and take part in the vandalism.
I further like to mention that said Shri Ajay Kumar Rout alongwith his aforesaid two accomplices with the support of some outsiders have spread a reign of terror inside entire Bhadrak Head Post Office campus and beyond, covering other Post Offices. They are terrorizing their adversaries and other innocent staff to desist them to stand witness to their criminal act. They virtually made the Postal Divisional Office run in skeleton in attendance on 14.01.2018 and 15.01.2018 as they terrorized administrative staff not to join work through threats. They have taken credit for making the postal administration in Bhadrak motionless through the reign of terror. This position can be verified from spot inquiry.
I would like to mention furthermore that Said Sri Ajay Kumar Rout has got political clout by virtue of his association with important political figures of the District about which everybody in local postal division is aware of. Two political heavy-weights are frequenting the residential quarter in occupation of said Sri Rout. As ascertained by me, they last visited the quarter on 19.01.2018. Shri Rout is getting moral and political support from them to spread the reign of terror giving impression that the District Collector is a puppet in the hand of such very smart political heavy- weight. They are openly telling that being close to the party in power they have control over everybody to do whatever they like.
In relation to earlier instance of hooliganism by aforesaid three staff (Shri Ajay Kumar Rout, Shri Asutosh Rout and Shri Biswanath Jena) on 12.01.2018, FIR has been registered in Bhadrak Town Police Station on 15.01.2018 on the complaint of Shri Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Asst. Supdt of Post Offices, (Outdor), Bhadrak. It is learnt that the FIR is converted to GR case No.71/2018 under Sections 341,342,353 and 506 IPC in the court of learned SDJM, Bhadrak. The accused have become reactive and are resorting to different activities, one after another, to defame me, malign my character and give trouble to me as they started implementing their pre-planned strategy as mentioned during outburst while heckling Sri Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Asst. Supdt of Posts Offices (Outdoor) on whose complaint RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 the aforesaid GR Case has been registered. They have filed a false complaint alleging atrocity against one of the accused persons who happens to belong to SC community. They are giving misinformation to media people and lodged a completely fabricated complaint against me through Bahujan Samajbadi Party under umbrella of Ambedkar Manch to the Collector & District Magistrate Bhadrak alleging dishonor to the photo of Dr. BR Ambedkar and hatred towards SC/ST community which is totally false. I learn that they have more plans to harass me on the pretext of unfavorable transfer orders issued under my signature on 09.01.2018 and trying their every effort to give mental pressure on me to come to their terms to succumb to their unreasonable demand in official work and to withdraw the case filed with police against them. They are terrorising two of postal staff who were witnesses to the hooliganism on 12.01.2018 to change their versions. It is to mention that the issue of orders of transfers and posting. which is mainly in consequence of promotion of staff to supervisory cadre as per the approval received from the office of Chief Postmaster General, Bhubaneswar is a routine administrative process. Any official who feels affected has the right and privilege of preferring representation to Departmental Authority as per rule for suitable modification/change of place of posting. This is not a big issue as consideration can be given on merit on genuine cases. The orders have been issued on the basis of recommendations of a committee consisting of three officers including me. I am not the final authority to decide everything. If still dissatisfied with decision of the Departmental Authority, the concerned official can take shelter of CAT/Court for remedy. Without resorting to any kind of acceptable departmental process the aforesaid three persons in their capacity of staff union representatives have resorted to criminal activities and violence to get their demands fulfilled with muscle power with exhibition of political clout. The postal administration in Bhadrak Division has come to standstill as the aforesaid criminals rule the roost by spreading terror. Previously they had resorted to similar tactics with my predecessors and were successful. Though they resorted to criminal act, the same was not reported to police earlier under threat that they would retaliate with more such actions. They have drawn their inspiration from their past hooliganism which was kept under the wrap. To every loyal staff they are giving threat of kidnapping their close relations including young sisters, daughters and mothers. The innocent persons are tight- lipped and living a fearful life apprehending danger from the RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 aforesaid criminals considering their past record and political clout. Postal service in the entire division is badly affected as I am on leave and staying in Bhubaneswar since 12.01.2018 evening due to apprehension of danger to my life. The criminals have threatened to attack me and my family members at Bhubaneswar also. Staff in Bhadrak Division have no control over them as the person in additional charge of Superintendent cannot give his full attention in such unruly situation. Many staff are enjoying the anarchy as they are free from the burden of devoting to their work. Public complaints have increased to a very high number and are still increasing day by day due to improper service to customers.
In the aforesaid circumstances it is earnestly requested to take this complaint as an FIR and take appropriate action to help maintain law and order in the Bhadrak HO campus and in Bhadrak Postal Division.
Specific request is made for the action on following points.
1. The miscreants and their accomplices/associates may be booked under law to prevent them from indulging in more criminal activities.
2. My residential quarter (No.4, Type-III) in Bhadrak Head Post Office campus which is kept under lock and key by the aforesaid miscreants may be opened in presence of police with scientific/forensic team with use of sniffer dog to get confirmation who broke the lack used by me and entered inside my quarters illegally in my absence and to find out if anything is stolen or destroyed and any objectionable material is kept inside.
3. False and fabricated complaints raised against me at different levels may be ignored so as not to cause undue harassment to me."
[EMPHASIS ADDED] Based on the allegations made in the FIR, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty placed the applicant under suspension on 01.02.2018 and issued charge sheet vide Memorandum dated 01.03.2018. On 19.09.2018, applicant submitted his written defence to the charge sheet, upon consideration of RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 which Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty appointed IO and PO to proceed with the inquiry. On 23.11.2018, the police submitted final report on the FIR, which was also accepted by the Learned SDJM, Bhadrak vide order dated 04.04.2019. The matter was inquired into. The IO submitted its report copy of which was supplied to the applicant and the applicant submitted his defence to the report of the IO, upon consideration of which, the applicant was imposed with the punishment of dismissal with immediate effect vide order dated 28.10.2019. Appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected by Resp. No.3 on 30.04.2021 so also the revision petition by Resp. No.2 on 20.12.2021. It is stated that Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, then working as Suptd. of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, filed FIR, placed the applicant under suspension, decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, approved and issued charge sheet, appointed IO and PO. Thus, the very initiation of the proceedings cannot be said to be free from bias, or mala fide. The Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities rejected the appeal and revision RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 without considering this aspect of the matter although the same goes to the root of the matter. In the said premises, by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs State of UP & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 8339 of 2010 decided on 28.09.2010, and of this Bench dated 15.07.2025 in OA No. 523/2023 (Sarbeswar Das Vs UOI & Ors), it is stated that since the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings suffered from 'nemo debt esse judex in propria causa', means, no one shall be the judge of his own cause, by application of principles of 'sublato fundamento cadit opus', meaning thereby, that in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls, all subsequent orders/action are liable to be quashed. Hence, by filing this OA, the applicant has prayed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.03.2018, Inquiry report dated 15.05.2019, punishment order dated 28.10.2019, Appellate and Revisional orders dated 30.04.2021 and 20.12.2021 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him with backwages RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 and all other consequential service benefits including arrears.
2. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, based on the stand taken in the counter, has stoutly denied the above submission by stating that it is not correct to state that the principle of no one shall be the judge of his own cause is violated in any manner. According to him, Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, the then- Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Out Door), Bhadrak Division, vide letter dated 17.01.2018 reported that he has been misbehaved, manhandled and assaulted by three staff of Bhadrak Postal Division, namely Shri Ajay Kumar Rout, SPM, Bhadrak College SO, Shri Biswanath Jena, Padrak HO and, the Applicant, Sri Ahutosh Rout, along with outsiders in the evening of 12.01.2018 at about 19.30 hrs. In the said letter, he has reported that he has filed a complaint against the three offenders at Bhadrak Town Police Station on 13.01.2018. On receipt of the said complaint from Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, Ex-Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Out Door), Bhadrak Division, RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 Respondent No. 4, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, the then Supt. of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, directed the then Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices I/C, Bhadrak Central Sub- Division and the then Inspector of Posts, Bhadrak East Sub- Division for a fact finding inquiry and submission of report. Based on such fact finding report, the applicant was placed under suspension by Resp. No.4 followed by drawal of disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide SPOs Bhadrak Division Memo. No. DO/Corr(1)/2018 dated 01.03.2018 by Resp. No.4, Bipin Bihari Mohanty. Applicant submitted his defence on 17.08.2018 to the memorandum dated 01.03.2018. As in the defence representation dated 17.08.2018, the applicant did not admit the charges, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide office Memo. No. DO/Corr(1)/2018 dated 05.10.2018. The IO submitted its report holding the charge as proved, copy of which was supplied to the applicant and the applicant submitted his defence. Meantime, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, then working RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 as Suptd. of Post Offices, Bhadrak, and the DA of the applicant was transferred and in his place Sri Sarbeswar Mishra, was posted as Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak, who, after considering the report of the IO, defence of the applicant and entire records, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against which, applicant preferred appeal, which was duly considered and rejected in a well reasoned order whereupon he preferred revision, which was also rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the stand of the applicant that the then Suptd. of Post Offices, Bhadrak, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, acted as a judge of his own action being not correct, the principles of 'nemo debt esse judex in propria causa', and 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' have no application to the case in hand and, therefore, this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
3. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties noted above, we have perused RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 the records. It is no doubt true that punishment of removal and dismissal is a capital punishment insofar as an employee is concerned because by imposition of such punishment, the service, irrespective of period rendered by an employee, is forfeited thereby depriving him/her of any benefits to meet the livelihood. Therefore, the legislation have consciously made various provisions as a precondition to be strictly adhered to before imposing any punishment upon a Govt. servant in a disciplinary proceedings and adherence of such principle in letter and spirit have been reiterated by various courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court in very many cases. It has also been reiterated in various cases that any action against an employee must be indiscriminatory and free from bias and malafide.
4. Admittedly, based on the intimation of ASPO alleging misbehaviour and mishandling by applicant and some others, Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, who was then working as SPO, Bhadrak and DA of the applicant lodged FIR before the concerned police station and, who upon consideration of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 allegations decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and issued the charge sheet. Thereafter, considered the defence submitted by the applicant to the charge sheet and appointed IO/PO to proceed with the inquiry. But, the punishment was imposed by Sri Sarbeswar Mishra since Sri Mohanty meanwhile was transferred from the said post. No one shall be the judge of his own cause is a well sound principle still stood thus. The legal maxim 'nemo debet esse judex in propria causa' (no man shall be a judge in his own cause) is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice is the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Munuswamy Mudaliar & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 2232; Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; and Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 468).
RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
5. A Disciplinary Authority (DA) who is involved directly or indirectly in the allegations against an employee should refrain from acting as the DA to avoid bias for upholding principles of natural justice and fair play. Acting as both a witness/involved party and the decision-maker violates the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, often leading to judicial intervention. In the cases of A.U. Kureshi Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 84, and Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 417, it was held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has dealt with in any capacity. The failure to observe this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. Therefore, law requires that a person should not decide a case wherein he is interested. The question is not whether the person is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
6. The existence of an element of bias renders the entire disciplinary proceedings void. Such a defect cannot be cured at the appellate stage even if the fairness of the appellate authority is beyond dispute. (Vide: S. Parthasarthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2701; and Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamla Prasad Shukla & Ors., 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 21).
7. In support of the stand that decision to proceed against the applicant in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14, issuance of charge sheet and, subsequent action till appointment of the IO/PO by Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty as DA is not free from bias and, actuated with malice and malafide exercise of power since he himself lodged the FIR before the police stations against the applicant alleging omission and commission and, thus, the same is not sustainable, Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra). We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court granted relief in favour of the Md. Yunus Khan by observing that the RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and the conclusion thereof by the imposition of the punishment, who had himself been a witness, was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, stood vitiated. We also find that this Bench in the case of Sarbeswar Das (supra), quashed the charge sheet issued in violation of the settled principle of no one shall be the judge of his own cause/natural justice/bias. An apprehension of bias operates as a disqualification for a person to act as adjudicator. No person can be a Judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Anyone, who has personal interest in the disciplinary proceedings, must keep himself away from such proceedings. The violation of the principles of natural justice renders the order null and void. This rule has been held to be sacred vide Md. Yunus Khan(supra).
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 4170 has held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 dealt with in any capacity. The failure to observe this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. The question is not whether the person is actually biased, but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.
8. In the instant case, we find that Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, the then SPO, Bhadrak, himself reported to the police for taking action against the applicant for his conduct and in the main thrust of the charge against the applicant in the DP related to his conduct, which was the subject matter of the FIR. The said Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty, in the capacity of SPO, Bhadrak and DA approved initiation of the proceedings and issued the charges and, sat in judgment over the explanation furnished by the applicant and decided to proceed with the inquiry. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. Anyone, who had a personal stake in an allegation, must have kept himself aloof from dealing RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022 with the disciplinary proceedings. On examination of the facts with the rules and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not have any iota of doubt in our mind that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings by Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty in the capacity of DA cannot be accepted in law. The orders of the AA and RA are completely silent on the above aspect. It is a settled legal position that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a situation the legal maxim 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' is applicable meaning thereby in case a foundation is removed the superstructure falls. Further, 'quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur' meaning thereby what is done contrary to law is considered not done is a well settled position of law. In the said circumstances, since the initiation of the proceedings and the issuance of charge sheet are not sustainable in the eyes of law, the orders of the DA, AA and RA are liable to be quashed.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
9. Thus, going by the discussions so also the law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents is not sustainable. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 01.03.2018, held to be an outcome of bias being suffered from the settled principle of 'nemo debt esse judex in propria causa', is hereby quashed. In the said circumstances, by applying the principle of 'sublato fundamento cadit opus', all consequential orders, viz. orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.10.2019, Appellate Authority dated 30.04.2021 and the Revisional Authority 20.12.2021, are hereby quashed. Resultantly, it is held that the applicant is deemed to have been continuing in his post from the date of dismissal with all consequential service benefits except backwages. The compliance order is directed to be issued within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 15:37:07 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00162 of 2022
12. As a fortiori , this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.04.07
15:37:07 +05'30'