Orissa High Court
Duryodhan Mohanty vs Union Of India & Others ........ Opp. ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: C.R. Dash, Biswanath Rath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18930 of 2021
Duryodhan Mohanty . ........ Petitioner
Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha, Adv.
-Versus-
Union of India & others ........ Opp. Parties
Mr. Jateswar Nayak, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE C.R. DASH
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
27.10.2021 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel for the Opp. Parties.
3. The petitioner was appointed as EDBPM (now GDSBPM) in Damodarpur, BO and assumed charge with effect from 30.04.1981. On a complaint of manipulation of pass books and deposit slips lodged against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Department and the petitioner was found to be innocent and no 2 departmental proceeding was initiated against him. During 1990, C.B.I. drew up a F.I.R. against the petitioner on the self-same allegation following which, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was convicted by the learned Additional C.J.M., Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 11.04.1997 for committing crime punishable under Section 409 IPC. Following this, the Department issued order dated 28.11.1997 and the petitioner was put off duty with immediate effect. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the order of conviction before the higher forum in appeal and the sentence was suspended vide order dated 23.04.1997. But still then, the petitioner was penalized with put off duty. Vide order dated 24.02.1998 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, the petitioner was removed from services without any departmental proceeding. The petitioner preferred a representation to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division seeking reinstatement in service, which was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2001. Then the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Revision No.570 of 1999, which ended with order dated 03.02.2017 exonerating the petitioner from all the criminal charges. The petitioner thereafter communicated the order of this Court along with the representation dated 08.02.2017 to the authority for consideration of his application for reinstatement in service. Since no action was taken by the Department, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.145 of 2017, which was disposed of at the admission stage on 20.03.2017, directing the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division to consider the representation of the 3 petitioner. In his order dated 08.05.2017, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division held that the High Court has not allowed the revision on merit. However, vide order dated 16.08.2017, the petitioner was reinstated in service but deprived from all such benefits, which are consequential to his reinstatement.
4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.12.2017 to the authority, which has not been considered. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such non-consideration of his representation, again approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.7 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2020, directing the Chief Post Master General(CPMG), Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar, to take a decision on the representation dated 13.12.2017, within a period of two months. The Chief Post Master General, Odisha, having considered the representation of the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dated 19.06.2020, which was again impugned in O.A. No.283 of 2020.
5. After hearing the parties in O.A. No.283 of 2020, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in para-11 held thus :-
"It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in accordance with FR 52(2) on the basis of principle of 'no work no pay', the applicant is not entitled to any pay during the interim period in question. But the authorities have not taken into consideration and have also not given any opportunity to the applicant to produce any materials before them to show that the applicant was gainfully employed anywhere else during the intervening period in question. In the absence of any such materials before the authorities the stand taken by the department that the applicant is not entitled to any pay during that period cannot be accepted. No opportunity of being heard was also 4 given to the applicant and he was also not given opportunity to produce any materials in this regard. Therefore it is necessary to remand back the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration of the matter as to whether the applicant is entitled to get the TRCA for the intervening period from the date of his termination to the date of his acquittal in the criminal appeal in question. The date on which department came to know about the said acquittal of the applicant in connection with the criminal case in question is also relevant aspect to be considered in this regard."
6. In fine, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack remanded the matter to the Department for consideration.
7. Against the order of remand, the petitioner has approached this Court. However, after the remand was made, the Department, having acted upon the order of the learned Tribunal vide Annexure-5, by passing the order in Annexure-6, this Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition after the development vide Annexure-6.
8. In such circumstance, the petitioner, if so advised, may move the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for redressal of his grievance and this Court accordingly disposes of the matter, directing the petitioner to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance so far as the order vide Annexure- 6 is concerned.
9. Before parting with the order, we are, however, persuaded to observe here that the petitioner, being an old man, having approached the Tribunal thrice earlier and this is going to be his 4th approach before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal may do well to dispose of 5 the matter at its level as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of pleadings by all the parties.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this Order be granted as per rules.
...............................
(C.R. Dash) JUDGE ...............................
(Biswanath Rath) JUDGE Subha 6 7