Orissa High Court
Pramod Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 16 January, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAS) No.68 of 2017
Pramod Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.01.2023 Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. At the outset the date 30.05.2019 indicated in order dtd.15.12.2022 be corrected as 30.09.2019.
3. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned AGA appearing for the Opp. Parties.
4. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 30.12.2006 vide Annexure-2 and to treat the period of suspension from 18.03.2006 to 02.02.2009 as duty.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a VAW -cum- Executive Officer, Chandinimal G.P. under Jharsuguda Block, a proceeding was initiated against him on 30.12.2006 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sambalpur under Annexure-2 with the following charges:-
// 2 // "Whereas you Sri Pramod Kr. Sahu, VAW-cum-.E.0., Chandanimal, G.P. of Jharsuguda Block have committed the following irregularities lapses during your incumbency as E.0, for which charges as hereunder are framed against you under the provision of Rule 16 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962.
That as per proposal for placing Sri P.K. Sahu, VAW - cum- E.0. Chandanimal G.P. under suspension, received vide L.No.772/DRDA dated 10.3.06 of Collector, Jharsuguda, it is found that you have not performed your duty as per provision under O.G.P. Guide lone, so the following occurrences have been arised against you.
1.There has been no entry in G.P.Cash Book since, 7.10.05.
2. The Cash book prior to the one currently in use is nottraceable. 3.No entry has been made in grain Register since 12.8.04 Also the details of rice Q.956.36.550 under NFFWP for 2005-06 and Q.256.94. 200 under S.G.R.Y for 2005-06 is not traceable. Physical stock appears much less than the quantity of rice issued. Physical stock of rice could n be verified by the Block Devt. officer as you left to bring the key of G.P. Godown and has not turned up for long hours.
4. You are regular absentee in G.P. office as well in the monthly review meeting of E.Os in the Block.
Thus the following charges have been framed against you
1. Dereliction in Govt. duty.
2. Violation of Govt. servant conduct rules and Govt. guideline.
3.Misconduc.
Therefore, you are directed to explain in writing within 0 days from the date of receipt of this charges to why suitable disciplinary action will not be taken against you for such gross negligence in Govt. duty and violation of Govt. guidelines. You should submit your explanation in duplicate to the undersigned, within the above stipulated period, failing which it will be presumed that, you have no explanation to offer and the proceeding will be disposed of on its own merit. You are also required to state as to whether you desire to be heard in person and sauce witness if any in support of defence."
6. It is contended that on receipt of the charges though the Petitioner vide Annexure-3 moved the O.P. No. 1 under Annexure- 3 to supply him the documents for his filing the written statement of Page 2 of 5 // 3 // defence, but the said documents were never supplied. Without providing the documents as prayed for, the Authority vide order under Annexure-6 appointed the Enquiry Officer as well as the Marshalling Officer to proceed with the enquiry. Thereafter, the Petitioner was reinstated in his service and also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that because of the pendency of the proceeding as on date the Petitioner even though has been superannuated from his service, but he is not getting his retiral benefits.
7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the Authorities have failed to dispose of the proceeding for the last 15 years, in view of the decision reported in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (AIR 2006 SC 207), the proceeding against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 16 of the aforementioned Judgment has held as follows:-
"16. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had al- ready suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of Page 3 of 5 // 4 // fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
8. Mr. Panda also relied on a decision of this Court passed on 06.09.2022 in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3712 of 2016. This Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833 quashed the proceeding therein on the ground of inordinate delay in finalizing the same.
9. Even though notice of the writ petition was issued on 18.12.2017 and there was no restrain order restraining the Opp. Parties from finalizing the proceeding, but no counter affidavit was filed by the Opp. Parties nor the proceeding was disposed of. Taking into account the pendency of the proceeding for more than 15 years, this Court passed the following order on 15.12.2022:
"2. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken in the writ petition and in view of the fact that the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Proceeding No. 8408 dtd.30.12.2006 has not yet been finalized and the Petitioner has retired from his service on 30.05.2019, Mr. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instruction with regard to the present status of the said proceeding and the reason for non-finalization of the same for the last 15 years. Such instruction shall be positively provided to this Court on the next date.
4. As requested, list this matter on 16.01.2023.Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
5. A free copy of the order be provided to Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for compliance."
10. Today when the matter was taken up, Mr. Balabantaray, learned AGA submitted that he has got no instruction with regard to the status of the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the submissions made by Mr. Panda as well as the grounds taken in the writ petition, this Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited supra as well as the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3712 of 2016, is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 30.12.2006 vide Annexure-2. While quashing he same, this Court directs the O.P. No. 1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner for the period from 18.03.2006 to 02.02.2009 as due and admissible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. On such regularization of the service as directed, the Authority shall process the pension papers of the Petitioner and see that the retiral benefits of the Petitioner is disbursed in his favour within a further period of three (3) months.
12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 5 of 5